> I don't think so, > Signature MR simply describes a "signature associated" memory region > i.e. it is a memory region that > also defines some signature operation offload aside from normal RDMA > (for example validate & strip). > SGL are used to publish several rkeys for the server/target/peer to > perform RDMA on each. > In this case the user previously registered each MR which he wishes it's > peer to RDMA over. > Same story here, if user has several signature associated MRs, where he > wish his peer to RDMA over (in a protected manner), > he can use these rkeys to construct SGL. > > > Why are the signature properties separate from the protection > information? > > Well, > Protection information is the actual protection block guards of the data > (i.e. CRCs, XORs, DIFs etc..), while the signature properties > structure is the descriptor telling the HCA how to > treat/validate/generate the protection information. > > Note that signature support requires the HCA to be able to support > INSERT operations. > This means that there is no protection information and the HCA is asked > to generate it and add it to the data stream > (which may be incoming or outgoing...),
Would we lose anything making this a new operation for the QP, versus trying to hook it into the existing ib_post_send call? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
