On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
