On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Mike> Thin Provisioning fields are assumed available in the BLOCK LIMITS > Mike> VPD page if PAGE LENGTH is 0x3c. The BLOCK LIMITS VPD page may be > Mike> extended over time. Allow for the possibility that the PAGE > Mike> LENGTH exceeds 0x3c. > > SBC3 states that: > > "If the device server supports thin provisioning, then the device server > shall set the PAGE LENGTH field to 3Ch." > > That's a "shall". That's a non-negotiable requirement in standards > speak. And besides, only half of that mandated page length is currently > spoken for. So I wonder what motivated your change? Do you have any > examples of devices with a bigger page length? I forgot to cc Fred Knight on my patch, but Fred was/is attending the most recent T10. Based on the discussions there, and me having shared with him the PAGE LENGTH == 0x3c constraint before, he sent me private mail sharing that SBC3 is not yet final nor approved. And that at this recent T10 meeting they were talking of extending the BLOCK LIMITS VPD. If not for SBC3 then for SBC4. So coming full circle: why impose a precise PAGE LENGTH of 0x3c? It'll only cause compatibility problems for us down the road when new devices do come to market. Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
