From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 00/10] Introduce Signature feature Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:06:18 -0700 Message-ID: <527425DA.7040609@acm.org> References: <1383222255-22699-1-git-send-email-sagig@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1383222255-22699-1-git-send-email-sagig-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sagi Grimberg , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: oren-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, tzahio-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > While T10-DIF clearly defines that over the wire protection guards are > interleaved into the data stream (each 512-Byte block followed by 8-byte > guard), when in memory, the protection guards may reside in a buffer > separated from the data. Depending on the application, it is usually > easier to handle the data when it is contiguous. In this case the data > buffer will be of size 512xN and the protection buffer will be of size > 8xN (where N is the number of blocks in the transaction). It might be worth mentioning here that in the Linux block layer the approach has been chosen where actual data an protection information are in separate buffers. See also the bi_integrity field in struct bio. Bart. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html