On 1/22/2014 3:52 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
Sagi == Sagi Grimberg sa...@dev.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
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 14:21 +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 1/19/2014 4:44 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
From: Nicholas Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
This patch adds blk_integrity passthrough support for block_device
backends using IBLOCK.
Nice!
This includes iblock_alloc_bip()
Sagi == Sagi Grimberg sa...@dev.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.
nab == Nicholas A Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org writes:
Please remind me why we ignore IP-CSUM guard type again? MKP, will
this be irrelevant for the initiator as well? if so, I don't see a
reason to expose this in RDMA verbs.
nab My understanding is that this was used for pre-production
On 1/19/2014 4:44 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
From: Nicholas Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
This patch adds blk_integrity passthrough support for block_device
backends using IBLOCK.
Nice!
This includes iblock_alloc_bip() + setup of bio_integrity_payload
information that attaches to the
5 matches
Mail list logo
