This message is from the T13 list server.
> trolling? ;-) > > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary/?troll Six points remain ... Yes I still don't understand: 1) Why more people don't appreciate that classic asynchronous & synchronous 8-bit SCSI and 16-bit ATAPI PIO empower the host to do a better job of counting data bytes copied than does ATA/PI DMA. 2) Why ATA/PI DMA folk don't want to work to recover what we had in ATA/PI PIO. 3) Why the Apple/ Microsoft/ Linux host folk aren't pushing the motherboard & PCI card & device folk hard for better byte counting support. (My employer - a device maker, may she forever be anonymous - solved this last year on a vendor-specific basis.) Yes I still see: 4) Windows grows progressively worse at passing thru such commands as -x "12 0 0 0 05 0" -i 5 i.e. an op x12 Inquiry for the data just up to and including the additionalLength at offset 4. 5) Hale is here, Jim is at least as nearby as T10. Whatever conversation we had going offline re countable data bytes died away, leaving me with no memory but a remarkably persistent failure to communicate. Yes I still wonder: 6) What will happen when the switch to 64-bit hardware makes the canonical "-x 12 0 0 0 24 0" -i x24 choke as badly as I hear that first example does in Win 98, Mac OS X, etc. today. > trolling? ;-) I would myself enjoy a conclusive discussion of how ATA/PI DMA could & should or should not count bytes more accurately, but maybe many of us here remember seeing the requests that we limit the bandwidth of such a discussion. What should that limit be? Maybe one post per author per day? Maybe less? I wonder what the average is now for countable data bytes, from the original inconclusive burst thru til now? When was that burst? Sometime around or after Nov 2001? How emphatic was the ban on discussion? Censored forever? Or is a year long enough? Pat LaVarre
