On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 14:57 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 1/11/2013 18:36, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 08:03 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > >> On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >>> In T10-DIF, when a series of 512-byte data blocks are transferred, each > >>> block is followed by an 8-byte guard. The guard consists of CRC that > >>> protects the integrity of the data in the block, and some other tags > >>> that protects against mis-directed IOs. > >> > >> Shouldn't that read "logical block length divided by 2**(protection > >> interval exponent)" instead of "512" ? From the SPC-4 FORMAT UNIT > >> section: > > > > Why should the protection interval in FORMAT_UNIT be mentioned when it's > > not supported by the hardware, nor by drivers/scsi/sd_dif.c itself..? > > Hello Nick, > > My understanding is that this patch series is not only intended for > initiator drivers but also for target drivers like ib_srpt and ib_isert. > As you know target drivers do not restrict the initiator operating > system to Linux. Although I do not know whether there are already > operating systems that support the "protection interval exponent",
It's my understanding that Linux is still the only stack that supports DIF, so AFAICT no one is actually supporting this. > I think it is a good idea to stay as close as possible to the terminology > of the SPC-4 standard. > No, in this context it only adds pointless misdirection because 1) The hardware in question doesn't support it, and 2) Linux itself doesn't support it. --nab -- 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
