diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c b/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c index 8f4f29f18b8c..06711ac095f2 100644 --- a/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ enum nvme_tcp_queue_flags { NVME_TCP_Q_ALLOCATED = 0, NVME_TCP_Q_LIVE = 1, NVME_TCP_Q_POLLING = 2, + NVME_TCP_Q_OFFLOADS = 3,Sagi - following our discussion and your suggestions regarding the NVMeTCP Offload ULP module that we are working on at Marvell in which a TCP_OFFLOAD transport type would be added,
We still need to see how this pans out.. it's hard to predict if this is the best approach before seeing the code. I'd suggest to share some code so others can share their input.
we are concerned that perhaps the generic term "offload" for both the transport type (for the Marvell work) and for the DDP and CRC offload queue (for the Mellanox work) may be misleading and confusing to developers and to users. Perhaps the naming should be "direct data placement", e.g. NVME_TCP_Q_DDP or NVME_TCP_Q_DIRECT?
We can call this NVME_TCP_Q_DDP, no issues with that.
