Re: iSCSI: DLB-T.28 (Logout discards OOO commands)

["Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>]

David,

You're right, "command reordering queue" needs to be defined.
I'd prefer doing that, or alternatively going with your suggested
text below, but S/b " a command with a smaller CmdSN has"
W/ "one or more commands with smaller CmdSN(s) have".

And yes, in the quoted text at the bottom, "commands" would
be a better fit compared to "tasks".

Thanks.
--
Mallikarjun

Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Networked Storage Architecture
Network Storage Solutions
Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 
Roseville CA 95747
cbm@rose.hp.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Black_David@emc.com>
To: <cbm@rose.hp.com>; <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:56 AM
Subject: RE: iSCSI: DLB-T.28 (Logout discards OOO commands)


> Mallikarjun,
> 
> The "active" suggestion helps, but the text in Section
> 9.14 uses the phrase "command reordering
> queue" without defining it, and uses the word
> "tasks" where "commands" would have been better.
> 
> The language used in 9.14 needs to be aligned with the language
> used to specify command ordering in Section 2.2.2.1.  One
> (somewhat wordy) possibility for rephrasing would be:
> 
> results in the discarding of commands that have arrived
> on the connection being logged out but have not been
> delivered to SCSI because a command with a smaller CmdSN
> has not been received by iSCSI (see Section 2.2.2.1).
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> ---------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 249-6449            FAX: +1 (508) 497-8018
> black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mallikarjun C. [mailto:cbm@rose.hp.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 3:43 PM
> > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > Subject: iSCSI: DLB-T.28 (Logout discards OOO commands)
> > 
> > 
> > > [T.28] 9.14 Logout Request
> > > 
> > >   A successful completion of a logout request with the reason code of 
> > >   "close the connection" or "remove the connection for recovery" 
> > >   results in the discarding of all tasks waiting in the command reor-
> > >   dering queue that are allegiant to the connection being logged out.
> > > 
> > > "discarding" is not what hapapens in the "remove the connection for
> recovery
> > > case according to the following text from Section 6.5:
> > > 
> > >       b)  Logout the connection for recovery and continue the tasks on a
> 
> > >       different connection instance as described in Section 6.1 Retry 
> > >       and Reassign in Recovery. [OR]
> > > 
> > > A "discarded" task cannot be "continue"-d.  I suspect the text should
> say
> > > that "close the connection" terminates the tasks, anad "remove the
> > > connection
> > > for recovery" suspends the tasks with the following CmdSN 
> > side effects ...
> > 
> > Notice the phrase "waiting in the command reordering queue".  *Any*
> > flavor of Logout would cause the OOO commands in the target's reordering
> > queue to be discarded.  The difference in behaviors is only
> > for the active tasks.
> > 
> > The recovery Logout, when successfully executed, would prepare the *active
> 
> > instantiated tasks* for reassignment, while the other two flavors
> > of Logout would terminate all appropriate tasks.
> > 
> > I would suggest qualifying the words task/tasks with "active"
> > in section 6.5 (in the 
> > text you quoted), and also in sections 9.5/9.6 to make this 
> > distinction clear.
> > 
> > 
> > Mallikarjun
> >   
> > 
>