From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.168.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FE60BA42; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.168.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743620465; cv=none; b=hsXztMSvGTUdceVioBjkPuEEv2o7Yyf2VdpjYuJHl6jx1ZapJ83lA0nPHgx+1f4LFwRf2U6UHY+NWjS7NObuFN5oi3ZB6KcUq2hmLXI7+FOIO0+aFwQzN/6S4JApfCEtdpokR+rHYSYB1CcMIa8v25HyLBIXKuy2UJwdaKP4uvM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743620465; c=relaxed/simple; bh=iVRswX5P/3WFcdk+pZHZMsYppdWUO4nmDl4ZBIPTkEY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=sXVug5fDlbJjzD5iTL2uQK/djw1tbCbG+SJX/ZZyA1jBwHd8s2A4ErNt62DlIc29BM95JOfz5hJJ6AKlUzJCdLN6Ccl0WCRCveLxn/ehpxBmM7Su0K30DU2szQKGqlJn9M1dg0UgSkD3S/OkmTRyHmcNvFk4biV1zG6pkFBt6wQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=quicinc.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=quicinc.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b=hYhD7pVN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.168.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=quicinc.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=quicinc.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b="hYhD7pVN" Received: from pps.filterd (m0279862.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 532C1hZx024534; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:00:28 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=qcppdkim1; bh= ij6oVdOz4GhS0vGrhbityqjcv93TkR0sIrqUodkZMFk=; b=hYhD7pVNIeDwDBrW RdO5PrMwS8sO1ippIQSGUyIYQ2aHb7qJuvA8S/CTVfe+wl3fGVcBkK+tVHJeC/Fq hL0quAhjsZgdxh4KYOc6r2i6Gy0K17YxXYIvcN3aAPcOVgVQfvxnN1L1QRwh3B/f iNw133fc//aUQBjMULW74HoUe6hVoYaUgy9HMacMC7MaMwE5l9UNz5swOuqq8Os5 wu3dTwbUcX100OEvJokqUmtO2Ui7Bihi+ChA5Cq0uSXw6qzZZsLnr5JqmT6CIlBj jsmAF8BSmVLuxw7LwpPsMxs6waa4SBRHV0VIQ6IaNJwJBe63uNd47fsw3lzvLxqP V7jENg== Received: from nasanppmta05.qualcomm.com (i-global254.qualcomm.com [199.106.103.254]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 45rbpywh5x-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 02 Apr 2025 19:00:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nasanex01a.na.qualcomm.com (nasanex01a.na.qualcomm.com [10.52.223.231]) by NASANPPMTA05.qualcomm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTPS id 532J0RBJ002057 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:00:27 GMT Received: from [10.46.162.103] (10.80.80.8) by nasanex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.52.223.231) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.9; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 12:00:26 -0700 Message-ID: <1b87152e-ff0f-9c45-020d-4927ff3dbef8@quicinc.com> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 12:00:26 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] scsi: ufs: core: add device level exception support Content-Language: en-US To: "manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org" , Bart Van Assche CC: Arthur Simchaev , "quic_cang@quicinc.com" , "quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com" , "avri.altman@wdc.com" , "peter.wang@mediatek.com" , "minwoo.im@samsung.com" , "adrian.hunter@intel.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , Alim Akhtar , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Matthias Brugger , AngeloGioacchino Del Regno , Bean Huo , Keoseong Park , Ziqi Chen , Al Viro , "Gwendal Grignou" , Eric Biggers , open list , "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support:Keyword:mediatek" , "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support:Keyword:mediatek" References: <4370b3a3b5a5675bb3e75aaa48a273674c159339.1742526978.git.quic_nguyenb@quicinc.com> <0a68d437-5d6a-42aa-ae4e-6f5d89cfcaf3@acm.org> <3d7b543c-1165-42e0-8471-25b04c7572ac@acm.org> <4cb20c80-9bb0-e147-e3c0-467f4c8828ba@quicinc.com> <989e695e-e6a4-4427-9041-e39ecf5b5674@acm.org> From: "Bao D. Nguyen" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) To nasanex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.52.223.231) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=5800 signatures=585085 X-Proofpoint-GUID: nuJyCFbkUJbHjGlJ8RMkEV0OQHadcz5I X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: nuJyCFbkUJbHjGlJ8RMkEV0OQHadcz5I X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=ZNLXmW7b c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=67ed894c cx=c_pps a=JYp8KDb2vCoCEuGobkYCKw==:117 a=JYp8KDb2vCoCEuGobkYCKw==:17 a=GEpy-HfZoHoA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=XR8D0OoHHMoA:10 a=KKAkSRfTAAAA:8 a=Si26H9tSdrSrRDVtBSgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=cvBusfyB2V15izCimMoJ:22 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1095,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.68.34 definitions=2025-04-02_08,2025-04-02_03,2024-11-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam authscore=0 authtc=n/a authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2502280000 definitions=main-2504020121 On 4/2/2025 12:49 AM, manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org wrote: > Yeah, we should be cautious in changing the uAPI header as it can break the > userspace applications. Annotating the members that need packed attribute seems > like the way forward to me. Yes, I realized potential issue when Bart raised a concern. > > Though, I'd like to understand which architecture has the alignment constraint > in this structure. Only if an architecture requires 8 byte alignment for __be32 > would be a problem. That too only for osf7 and reserved. But I'm not aware of > such architectures in use. When using "__u64 value;" in place of osf3-6, I saw the compiler padded 4 bytes, so __packed was needed for me to get correct __u64 value. I thought even the existing structure utp_upiu_query_v4_0 may need __packed on some fields where the driver reads the returned data in order to be safe across all architectures. However, without evidence of an actual failure, I didn't touch the existing structure. Only raised potential issue for discussion. Thanks, Bao