Hannes,
Do we need to keep the parameter?
If so we really should be re-enable it; ATM it's just a no-op leading
the user to believe something has actually happened.
The driver module parameters existed mainly for the purpose of hw
testing. One could disable IP checksum and revert to CRC to ensure both
code paths were working properly. But it wasn't really meant to be
something ordinary users would ever muck with. Why would anybody use the
much slower CRC when IP checksum was supported by the hardware? (*)
Agree, but I definitely might not see the full picture here.
Anyway. I think Sagi's iser_pi_guard patch was a result of that
transition from driver global checksum setting to per-I/O ditto.
Correct, and due to your comment above.
I don't have a problem with having a block-level preference knob
(slightly convoluted to implement since they are different integrity
profiles). But I do question whether it is worth the hassle. What
exactly is your use case that requires twiddling this?
I'm not sure its worth it either, I can easily ack this one if that's
the case.
--
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
