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

[James Bottomley]

On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 15:19 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "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.

I'm intrigued by this: how do you get the extra space, since I heard all
the drive vendors were adamant that 520 was it for the current
manufacturing processes.

James


--
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/