Christoph, >> +static blk_status_t nvme_crc64_generate(struct blk_integrity_iter *iter, >> + enum t10_dif_type type) > > Shouldn't the naming be something more like ext_pi_*? For one thing > I kinda hate having the nvme prefix here in block layer code, but also > nvme supports the normal 8 byte PI tuples, so this is a bit confusing. The rationale behind the original t10 prefix was that the format was defined by the T10 organization. At the time a T13 format was also on the table. So from that perspective, using nvme_ here is correct. I do like ext_ better, though. I don't particularly appreciate the way the new formats were defined in NVMe. I would have preferred new types instead of this "just like type N except for all these differences" approach. But that comes from NVMe completely missing how DIX removed all the format type knowledge from the controller/device and instead put the burden on the driver to tell the device what and how to check. In any case: Naming is hard, the code looks fine to me. Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
