From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sagi Grimberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] sd: Honor block layer integrity handling flags Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:20:19 +0300 Message-ID: <5412F313.4030005@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <1409254292-2540-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <1409254292-2540-15-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <540390FF.2040703@dev.mellanox.co.il> <54114AA3.2090806@dev.mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:48656 "EHLO mail-wi0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754674AbaILNU1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:20:27 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id n3so625042wiv.1 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 06:20:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, axboe@fb.com, hch@lst.de, sagig@mellanox.com On 9/12/2014 4:35 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>> "Sagi" == Sagi Grimberg writes: > > Sagi, > > Sagi> That's still a dependence on prot_type (type 0...). Notice that > Sagi> you set SCSI_PROT_REF_INCREMENT in every op index (except > Sagi> SCSI_PROT_NORMAL) so my point is that it's strange to see this > Sagi> association. > > I still don't understand your point. The mask table indicates which > flags are valid for a given protection operation. They are explicitly > DIX flags and have nothing to do with the target protection type. > I see, It's just confusing to see flags such as REF_INCREMENT/GUARD_CHECK/REF_CHECK associated with a set of prot operations, but I guess it's just me. Do you really need the mask anyway? seems like just an extra precaution against wrong flagging. It's just nit-picking - I do not see anything wrong with the patchset. We can drop this if you want... > Sagi> P.S. Now drivers can stop understanding prot_type to set DIF > Sagi> operations... so once drivers stop referencing it we can remove > Sagi> it from scsi_cmnd. > > Yes. Second part of this installment removes this and a few other things > and converts qla2xxx, lpfc, mptNsas, etc. to the new interface. > Nice, I posted "RDMA signature feature update" preparing iSER DIF code to complement this change - all that is left now is a straight-forward conversion.