On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:24:26AM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > > > >>Having a few schemes availabe in the core code that the driver can chose > >>from seems like a much more sensible option. > > > >I think that makes sense, but several of the schemes we are working > >with are effectively single-vendor schemes. Indirect MR and DIX are > >good examples of things that only one vendor implements, and are not > >standardized. > > > >In those cases it is hard to argue the core should provide support for > >them. > > I'm sorry but I disagree with the statement above. T10-DIF/DIX is a > standard and *not* a vendor specific feature. Other storage protocols > (FC, SAS, NVME) fully support it. So yes, the core *needs* to support it. Sorry, I ment the exact details of how DIX is exposed through verbs is only implemented by one vendor (eg IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR). The core absolutely should provide an API for this, I'm not convinced it should be at the MR level though.... > Moreover, the core stack poses memory alignment limitations for > registration. The RDMA stack should allow an interface that can resolve > these limitations if the device is capable of handling them. I'd say > this is something all vendors should look at. Sure would be nice.. Jason -- 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
