On 11/1/2013 5:13 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
+/**
+ * struct ib_sig_domain - Parameters specific for T10-DIF
+ * domain.
+ * @sig_type: specific signauture type
+ * @sig: union of all signature domain attributes that may
+ * be used to set domain layout.
+ * @dif:
+ * @type: T10-DIF type (0|1|2|3)
+ * @bg_type: T10-DIF block guard type (CRC|CSUM)
+ * @block_size: block size in signature domain.
+ * @app_tag: if app_tag is owned be the user,
+ * HCA will take this value to be app_tag.
+ * @ref_tag: initial ref_tag of signature handover.
+ * @type3_inc_reftag: T10-DIF type 3 does not state
+ * about the reference tag, it is the user
+ * choice to increment it or not.
+ */
+struct ib_sig_domain {
+ enum ib_signature_type sig_type;
+ union {
+ struct {
+ enum ib_t10_dif_type type;
+ enum ib_t10_dif_bg_type bg_type;
+ u16 block_size;
+ u16 bg;
+ u16 app_tag;
+ u32 ref_tag;
+ bool type3_inc_reftag;
+ } dif;
+ } sig;
+};
My understanding from SPC-4 is that in that when using protection
information such information is inserted after every protection
interval. A protection interval can be smaller than a logical block.
Shouldn't the name "block_size" be changed into something like
"pi_interval" to avoid confusion with the logical block size ?
Bart.
True, for DIF types 2,3 protection interval is not restricted to be
logical block length and may be smaller.
I agree with pi_interval naming.
Note that pi_intervals smaller than 512 bytes are not supported at the
moment.
Sagi.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
