>>>>> "Sagi" == Sagi Grimberg <sagig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> The real question is whether there is actually an I/O path to >> protect? It seems somewhat pointless to generate CRCs and then hand >> the resulting buffer to a "target" function call that then does a >> pass to verify it without any real data movement taking place in >> between. The corruption window in that case is fairly small. Sagi> I agree, it does seem too pedantic, but ignoring scsi_cmnd prot_op Sagi> feels somewhat wrong to me. I'm not talking about ignoring the prot_op. The kernel is not going to request PI transfers (prot_op > 0) unless both initiator and target agree on the protection mode. And if you are both initiator and target you are also in control over the host's prot_capabilities mask and whether you report PROT_EN=1 in READ CAPACITY(16) for the target. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
