On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 07:48:52AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > Fundamentally, the biggest problem we had with the original > implementation was that the "integrity profile" was static on a per > controller+device basis. The purpose of 1.1 was to make sure that how to > handle integrity metadata was a per-I/O decision with what to check and > how to do it driven by whichever entity attached the PI. As opposed to > being inferred by controllers and targets (through INQUIRY snooping, > etc.). > > We can add the flags back as part of the io_uring series but it does > seem like unnecessary churn to remove things in one release only to add > them back in the next (I'm assuming passthrough will be in 6.12). I can just keep the flags in, they aren't really in the way of anything else here. That being said, if you want opt-in aren't they the wrong polarity anyway?
