On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Tom Yan <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 August 2016 at 03:43, Shaun Tancheff <shaun.tanch...@seagate.com> wrote: >> >> Why would we enforce upper level limits on something that doesn't >> have any? > > If we advertise a limit in our SATL, it makes sense that we should > make sure the behaviour is consistent when we issue a write same > through the block layer / ioctl and when we issue a SCSI Write Same > command directly (e.g. with sg_write_same). IMHO that's pretty much > why SBC would mandate such behaviour as well.
Breaking would be advertising a limit that is too high and failing. Advertising a lower limit and succeeding may not be ideal for all possible use cases, but it's not breaking behaviour. >> >> If the upper level, or SG_IO, chooses to set a timeout of 10 hours and >> wipe a whole disk it should be free to do so. >> > > That's why I said, "if you are going to advertise an Maximum Write Same > Length". -- Shaun Tancheff
