On 9/12/2014 4:35 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
"Sagi" == Sagi Grimberg <sa...@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
Sagi,
Sagi> That's still a dependence on prot_type (type 0...). Notice that
Sagi> you set SCSI_PROT_REF_INCREMENT in every op index (except
Sagi> SCSI_PROT_NORMAL) so my point is that it's strange to see this
Sagi> association.
I still don't understand your point. The mask table indicates which
flags are valid for a given protection operation. They are explicitly
DIX flags and have nothing to do with the target protection type.
I see,
It's just confusing to see flags such as REF_INCREMENT/GUARD_CHECK/REF_CHECK
associated with a set of prot operations, but I guess it's just me.
Do you really need the mask anyway? seems like just an extra precaution
against wrong flagging.
It's just nit-picking - I do not see anything wrong with the patchset.
We can drop this if you want...
Sagi> P.S. Now drivers can stop understanding prot_type to set DIF
Sagi> operations... so once drivers stop referencing it we can remove
Sagi> it from scsi_cmnd.
Yes. Second part of this installment removes this and a few other things
and converts qla2xxx, lpfc, mptNsas, etc. to the new interface.
Nice, I posted "RDMA signature feature update" preparing iSER DIF code
to complement this change - all that is left now is a straight-forward
conversion.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
