Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] hw/block/nvme: end-to-end data protection

[Keith Busch]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 10:02:22PM +0100, Klaus Jensen wrote:
>  static uint16_t nvme_rw(NvmeCtrl *n, NvmeRequest *req)
>  {
>      NvmeRwCmd *rw = (NvmeRwCmd *)&req->cmd;
>      NvmeNamespace *ns = req->ns;
>      uint32_t nlb = (uint32_t)le16_to_cpu(rw->nlb) + 1;
>      uint64_t slba = le64_to_cpu(rw->slba);
> +    uint16_t ctrl = le16_to_cpu(rw->control);
>  
>      uint64_t data_size = nvme_l2b(ns, nlb);
> +    uint64_t real_data_size = data_size;
>      uint64_t data_offset = nvme_l2b(ns, slba);
>      enum BlockAcctType acct = req->cmd.opcode == NVME_CMD_WRITE ?
>          BLOCK_ACCT_WRITE : BLOCK_ACCT_READ;

Since this is right in the middle of the nvme read/write path, and we
have the outstanding ZNS stuff intermixed here, could we possibly
converge on the ZNS solution first, and rebase new IO path capabilities
on a ZNS enabled tree?