On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:42:48AM +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote: > On Sep 29 15:34, Keith Busch wrote: > > Yeah, looks safe as-is, but we're missing out on returning the spec > > required 'Invalid Field'. > > I can't see where it says that we should do that? Invalid Field in > Command if offset is *greater* than the size of the log page. > > Some dynamic log pages have side-effects of being read, so while this is > a super wierd way of specifying that we want nothing returned, I think > it is valid?
Eh, when spec says "size of the log page", I assume they're using the "zeroes based" definition for size as aligned with the NUMD field. So 512 is bigger than the sizeof the smart log occupying bytes 0-511. But I guess there's room to see it the other way, so maybe it is a way to request a no data log.