From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: T10-PI: Getting failed tag info Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 18:49:50 -0500 Message-ID: References: <54892468.5060300@vlnb.net> <20141215081857.GA24067@infradead.org> <20141230121542.GF32187@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:50328 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751687AbbAFXuZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 18:50:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141230121542.GF32187@infradead.org> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Tue, 30 Dec 2014 04:15:42 -0800") Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Vladislav Bolkhovitin , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Hellwig writes: Christoph> But those extensions require new structures to pass in the PI Christoph> info anyway.. Yep. But I still don't see why that warrants having a parallel error passing infrastructure in the kernel to handle data integrity errors. What does that buy us? I agree with not leaking any of the new errors to unsuspecting applications and only passing them out if the caller has explicitly enabled DIX. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering