This message is from the T13 list server.
It seems to me that the essence of what was requested has been captured. However the original comment to this thread related to a released Write request that may contain LBAs that when written would then overwrite data that from a system point of view had subsequently been written using the FUA command. The standard should not be silent about this as there are many applications that could very usefully use this command beside the one MS had in mind. The standard should cover the situation where write data with overlapping LBAs with that of the FUA command is in its buffer when the FUA comes in. It should warn explicitly that the host shall ensure that any released commands with overlapping LBAs to an upcoming FUA are serviced before issuing the FUA. Tony Goodfellow -----Original Message----- From: Gary Laatsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:40 PM To: Curtis Stevens; T13 List Server Subject: Re: [t13] hmmm.. no comments? This message is from the T13 list server. Curtis and Hale, Also, to expand upon this. I think Hale's point is the proposal put forth by Nita didn't contain the QUEUE FUA or QUEUE FUA EXT commands and he was wondering where they were added or how they were proposed. My memory was this was discussed and added at the June 2002 meetings. That is why I was wondering if anyone else remembered these discussions. I remember discussing all of this stuff (even Andre's comments about the FUA blowig away the queue) but for some reason it just wasn't captured very well in the minutes. Gary Laatsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Curtis Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "T13 List Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [t13] hmmm.. no comments? > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > Hale > > I was there during the discussions and there was no secret committee. > Basically, MS stated that they wanted to force meta data to the drive > without blowing the que. This means that although it is possible to lose > data, in their application data loss would not occur... > > --------------------------- > Curtis E. Stevens > 29 Dewey > Irvine, Ca 92620 > > Home: (949) 552-4777 > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hale Landis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "T13 List Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:57 AM > Subject: [t13] hmmm.. no comments? > > > > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > > > > I'm curious why there are no comments about the question of the > > origin of the WRITE DMA QUEUED FUA command (where is the proposal?). > > And why no comments on QUEUED EXT commands with large sector counts. > > > > Is this because all these discussions must take place via the "secret > > society"? > > > > Hale > > > > > > > > *** Hale Landis *** www.ata-atapi.com *** > > > > >
