Re: [PATCH 09/14] target/configfs: Expose protection device attributes

[Martin K. Petersen]

>>>>> "nab" == Nicholas A Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> What proposed 16 byte scheme?  The only DIF proposals I know for
>> SBC-4 are 13-185R0 and 12-369R0 and that's a couple of new algorithms
>> and types because we cannot change the 8 byte PI.

nab> Then I'm probably getting the SBC version wrong..  It's the one
nab> that includes using CRC32C for the block guard, and larger space
nab> for reference tag as mentioned by MKP.

This is the Type 4 we have been shopping among various vendors. It
predates and is simpler than HP's proposal (which met resistance in T10
and was subsequently dropped). So we revived our original Type 4
proposal which is 16 bytes of protection information per interval
(CRC32C, 48-bit LBA and 6 bytes of app tag). The proposal has been
sitting around for a while waiting for SBC-4 to open.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/