Subject: Re: MaxBurstSize ambiguous and should be separated

From: "Julian Satran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:45:51 +0200

Ron,

Arguments can be brought for having single limit such as:

   simplicity
   it is a SCSI-to-SCSI limit and most devices are using one direction at a
   time

However it is a simple matter to make 2 limits as for the transport so we
may want to do it if there are no good technical arguments against it.

Julo

                      Ron Grinfeld                                                                       
                      <[email-masked]        To:       Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL                   
                      om>                      cc:                                                       
                                               Subject:  MaxBurstSize ambiguous and should be separated  
                      17-03-02 15:25                                                                     
                      Please respond to                                                                  
                      Ron Grinfeld                                                                       

Julian,

MaxBurstSize, as it is now defined, limits both write sequences (by
limiting
the R2T) and limits read sequences supposedly when using the A bit.
Furthermore, according to section 11.13, it limits ANY data-in sequence
(without mentioning error recovery or A bit usage). Therefore it is both:

(1) Ambiguous - is it or is not applicable to data-ins when A bit is NOT
used?
(2) Needlessly confining - why should data-in and data-out sequence limits
be artificially tied through this one parameter

Why don't we define instead:

(a) MaxDataOutBurstSize (max sequence of data-outs - limits R2Ts)
(b) MaxDataInBurstSize  (max sequence of data-ins, point of ACK or
direction
change)

Rong