From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sagi Grimberg Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 00/10] Introduce Signature feature Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:14:29 +0200 Message-ID: <52763E25.1080905@mellanox.com> References: <1383222255-22699-1-git-send-email-sagig@mellanox.com> <527425DA.7040609@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <527425DA.7040609-HInyCGIudOg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Bart Van Assche , 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 11/2/2013 12:06 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > 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. > This is true, but signature verbs interface supports also data and protection interleaving in memory space. A user wishes to do so will pass the same ib_sge both for data and protection. In fact this was a requirement we got from customers. Sagi. -- 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