[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1a9ezocrg.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:19:47 -0500
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...erainc.com>,
target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/14] target/configfs: Expose protection device attributes
>>>>> "nab" == Nicholas A Bellinger <nab@...ux-iscsi.org> writes:
>> What proposed 16 byte scheme? The only DIF proposals I know for
>> SBC-4 are 13-185R0 and 12-369R0 and that's a couple of new algorithms
>> and types because we cannot change the 8 byte PI.
nab> Then I'm probably getting the SBC version wrong.. It's the one
nab> that includes using CRC32C for the block guard, and larger space
nab> for reference tag as mentioned by MKP.
This is the Type 4 we have been shopping among various vendors. It
predates and is simpler than HP's proposal (which met resistance in T10
and was subsequently dropped). So we revived our original Type 4
proposal which is 16 bytes of protection information per interval
(CRC32C, 48-bit LBA and 6 bytes of app tag). The proposal has been
sitting around for a while waiting for SBC-4 to open.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists