From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/21] lpfc: Implement support for wire-only DIF devices Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 17:20:09 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1428095580.6933.44.camel@myfc17> <20150405160613.GA8622@infradead.org> <5526E80C.5090807@emulex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:37287 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751330AbbDIVUl (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2015 17:20:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5526E80C.5090807@emulex.com> (James Smart's message of "Thu, 9 Apr 2015 16:58:52 -0400") Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Smart Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "Martin K. Petersen" >>>>> "James" == James Smart writes: James> fyi - in the v3 of the lpfc 10.5.0.0 patches I just posted, I James> pulled the patch. We will see what to do with it. We may come James> back with a set of generic midlayer patches. We already have a DIF blacklist. We could have an explicit whitelist as well. But it begs the question: Why on earth are 3Par not following the spec? And why don't they just fix their firmware to report the right thing? -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering