I don't see where this would preclude two different LUNs from being 'instances' of the same service.
It becomes an implementation decision.
From: Randy Turner [SMTP:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: P1394> May 1394 PWG Definitions
Help me refresh my memory.
The definition of a service below says there is a one-to-one correspondence
between a LUN and a service, and that services are independent of each
other. Does this imply that LUN (1) and LUN (2) within a particular unit
CANNOT be "instances" of the same service?
At 03:05 PM 5/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Here are the definitions that we came up with at the May 1394, PWG
>did not achieve rough consensus on the definitions for a queue and a
>Unit: Synonymous with a Unit Directory. A unit has a one to one
>with a device driver. From SBP-2: A component of a Serial Bus node that
>processing, memory, I/O or some other functionality. Once the node is
>initialized, the unit provides a CSR interface that is typically accessed by
>device driver software at an initiator. A node may have multiple units,
>normally operate independently of each other. Within this standard, a unit
>equivalent to a target.
>Service: A sub component of a unit that operates on a set of tasks
>of other services of the same unit. For SBP-2, there is a one-to-one
>correspondence between a service and a logical unit (LUN). For example, a
>printer (unit) might implement a PDL service responsible for data flow to
>printer and a management service responsible for control and status.
>Queue: A collection of ORBS that proceed or block independent of other
>by Atsushi Nakamura
>My shot at definition of "function":
>A function is part of the unit architecture and is an instance of a device
>model, e.g., mass storage, CD-ROM or printer. A function is usually a
>collection of services that are user identifiable.
>The definition of a function seems to indicate that a function is a unit.