From: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@dev.mellanox.co.il>
To: "martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
Cc: linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
target-devel <target-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
Oren Duer <oren@mellanox.com>,
james.smart@emulex.com, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>,
cbm@chadalapaka.com, julians@infinidat.com, meth@il.ibm.com,
david.black@emc.com
Subject: iSCSI Expected Data Transfer Length for T10-PI
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 18:30:35 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53820C9B.3090003@dev.mellanox.co.il> (raw)
Hey All,
Recently, iSER end-to-end T10-PI support maid it mainline.
I am wandering about the impact T10-PI should or shouldn't have on iSCSI
header
field "Expected Data Transfer Length".
RFC-7143 states:
"the Expected Data Transfer Length field contains the number of bytes of
data involved in this SCSI operation."
Since this field relates to *data bytes* I kept T10-PI implicit wrt this
field. The iSCSI target calculates the
total transfer length (data + protection) from the cdb transfer length
field and protect bits.
In FC, the fc_dl field was updated to relate to the total number of
transfer bytes and includes
data and protection bytes. virtio_scsi was added with a header PI
section (virtio_scsi_cmd_req_pi).
So my question is, should this field be updated to explicitly include
T10-PI bytes like the FC equivalent fc_dl?
Or should T10-PI bytes be implicit?
I want to pin down this one to avoid a situation where the standard is
open for interpretations.
Thanks,
Sagi.
next reply other threads:[~2014-05-25 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-25 15:30 Sagi Grimberg [this message]
2014-05-25 19:39 ` iSCSI Expected Data Transfer Length for T10-PI Julian Satran
2014-05-25 21:04 ` Sagi Grimberg
2014-05-27 11:58 ` Black, David
2014-05-27 17:12 ` Sagi Grimberg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53820C9B.3090003@dev.mellanox.co.il \
--to=sagig@dev.mellanox.co.il \
--cc=cbm@chadalapaka.com \
--cc=david.black@emc.com \
--cc=james.smart@emulex.com \
--cc=julians@infinidat.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=meth@il.ibm.com \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=nab@linux-iscsi.org \
--cc=ogerlitz@mellanox.com \
--cc=oren@mellanox.com \
--cc=target-devel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox