[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52DF98CA.3000300@dev.mellanox.co.il>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:09:14 +0200
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@....mellanox.co.il>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "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>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
Nicholas Bellinger <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 11/17] target/iblock: Add blk_integrity + BIP passthrough
support
On 1/22/2014 3:52 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>> "Sagi" == Sagi Grimberg <sagig@....mellanox.co.il> writes:
> Sagi> Please remind me why we ignore IP-CSUM guard type again? MKP,
> Sagi> will this be irrelevant for the initiator as well? if so, I don't
> Sagi> see a reason to expose this in RDMA verbs.
>
> I don't see much use for IP checksum for the target. You are required by
> SBC to use T10 CRC on the wire so there is no point in converting to IP
> checksum in the backend.
>
> My impending patches will allow you to pass through PI with T10 CRC to a
> device with an IP checksum block integrity profile (i.e. the choice of
> checksum is a per-bio bip flag instead of an HBA-enforced global).
>
OK, so IP checksum support still makes sense.
Thanks!
Sagi.
--
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