On 6/11/2014 12:17 AM, Quinn Tran wrote:
SNIP
QT Instead of using existing value within cmd-data_length, can we
calculated data_length based on secstors blocksize.
cmd-data_length = sectors * dev-dev_attrib.block_size;
We can do that I suppose...
Although it seems weird that the core
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 10:24 +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 6/11/2014 12:17 AM, Quinn Tran wrote:
SNIP
QT Instead of using existing value within cmd-data_length, can we
calculated data_length based on secstors blocksize.
cmd-data_length = sectors * dev-dev_attrib.block_size;
We
On 6/11/14 2:30 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 10:24 +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 6/11/2014 12:17 AM, Quinn Tran wrote:
SNIP
QT Instead of using existing value within cmd-data_length, can we
calculated data_length based on secstors
nab == Nicholas A Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org writes:
nab Hard to say. Discarding the transport length in v2 doesn't seem
nab like a good idea, but subtracting from cmd-prot_length in v1 is
nab using the sector count from the CDB anyways, so it's essentially
nab the same tradeoff of
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 22:32 +, Quinn Tran wrote:
On 6/11/14 2:30 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 10:24 +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 6/11/2014 12:17 AM, Quinn Tran wrote:
SNIP
QT Instead of using existing value within
Hi Sagi Co,
On Sun, 2014-06-08 at 13:27 +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
In various areas of the code, it is assumed that
se_cmd-data_length describes pure data. In case
that protection information exists over the wire
(protect bits is are on) the target core decrease
the protection length from
Il 10/06/2014 10:04, Nicholas A. Bellinger ha scritto:
That said, there is one other small qla2xxx change to enable per-session
PI that is currently missing in Quinn's patch in scsi/for-next code.
Sooo, I'll go ahead and include Sagi's patches with the vhost-scsi
change below if there are no
All,
Comments inline.
Regards,
Quinn Tran
On 6/10/14 1:04 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
Hi Sagi Co,
On Sun, 2014-06-08 at 13:27 +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
In various areas of the code, it is assumed that
se_cmd-data_length describes pure data. In case
that
In various areas of the code, it is assumed that
se_cmd-data_length describes pure data. In case
that protection information exists over the wire
(protect bits is are on) the target core decrease
the protection length from the data length (instead
of each transport peeking in the cdb).
Modify
9 matches
Mail list logo
