From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ric Wheeler Subject: Re: copy offload support in Linux - new system call needed? Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:55:42 -0500 Message-ID: <4EEA349E.8060800@redhat.com> References: <4EE8F75F.6070800@gmail.com> <20111214192739.GN2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <4EE8FC2E.3010207@gmail.com> <20111214222723.GD7623@fieldses.org> <1323961140.14317.2.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1323965498.14317.13.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1323968015.14317.28.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <4EEA2BF7.5030107@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Trond Myklebust , "J. Bruce Fields" , Al Viro , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel , Hannes Reinecke , Andrew Morton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Joel Becker , James Bottomley To: "Loke, Chetan" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 12/15/2011 12:31 PM, Loke, Chetan wrote: >> I think that hypervisor vendors will be very interested in this feature >> which >> would explain why vmware was active in drafting both the NFS and T10 > Specs are the only way to convince storage-target-vendors ;). Otherwise target-stack will need to implement multiple custom-CDB-handlers for different front-end APIs(which is ugly). > > > Chetan Hi Chetan, I should post from my "Red Hat" email to make this less confusing for you - I know that this is in fact interesting to vendors :) Thanks! Ric