From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: linux rdma 3.14 merge plans Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:42:37 -0800 Message-ID: References: <52CD1C68.4050406@mellanox.com> <1389645171.5567.459.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <1389820541.5567.543.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <1389906852.5567.668.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1389906852.5567.668.camel-XoQW25Eq2zviZyQQd+hFbcojREIfoBdhmpATvIKMPHk@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Hefty Sean , Or Gerlitz , Sagi Grimberg , linux-rdma , "Martin K. Petersen" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > I've reviewed the API from the perspective of what's required for > implementing protection support in iser, and currently don't have any > recommendations or objections beyond what has been proposed by Sagi & Co > in PATCH-v4 code. I guess I'm a little confused about why we need verbs support for this to implement DIF/DIX in iser. Isn't the whole point of protection to have end-to-end checksums, rather than having checksums computed by the transport after there's a chance for corruption? - R. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html