From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 008.lax.mailroute.net (008.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.11]) (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 59F851F416D; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:54:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738857269; cv=none; b=QWI9ztV0betBxJvuJBhiWttEl3jlXmkzFvjGP+eyXLXwrh/FZevV+S8yyo7wXiYLm8a6UeTRtd/sJeqU4oNxSz4f0u/uwyBVAcJjpaZFr2Bzl6ZK5dTlbRC7yvX0As7t8fGOSUcilvlcIpVHb6hhEv+YH02pdtK+8LSIiQgUXug= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738857269; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MABX6xVCTVYjqfhW7HCIEvQlyd3hFI0FBMQSjwhEX4M=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Gs4kI/7nuswsoLq6pAITHhKfJFnmXSGROsOt3MVVrkDnmhxgP86TWb0MdRZxZYoM7h4f2MlK2hQg1KPV6eqNa+lP+d/h5zB6qowOOsHln0GDxtNizmddW127pdW5vXpnAhT8wUDNlYwSthDYFeg+17ni7jaLIlcMIC7gKuuwUqM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=WHoZLrHu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="WHoZLrHu" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 008.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YphVq52sRz6CmM6L; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:54:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1738857265; x=1741449266; bh=MABX6xVCTVYjqfhW7HCIEvQl yd3hFI0FBMQSjwhEX4M=; b=WHoZLrHuy62dhmq1EZlReF8SHjop/c2DkxYfpIGc 1vA6yatDwUnrR/UnnA7MCHNv+6cdsd4jXr1jis1T1nFBHAObCQW0LqvnPoPNvj9V 8l/c+36VidJGKJypyRT0a5wlJrUVNudDpmJBuFnkvcGeDSyepukjK8P8FFql/RMz gIl847y4KBZDsYx/7tpXkB04nV4nEckhuncyam0q8Ca+dBN1dRymqWOihpT1vvy8 zHn6P78TMFk/8gKQ9oTGerhgFlnYIg9EnTfOUJCw5RE7aQa76+p02BDSZdhjWUrV 20EojEZ2pcZrncmy8jQA6p0SMC6Cpc3qY1r4mT09NgCEYw== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 008.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (008.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id 69iNgM2IxfKn; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.51.14] (c-73-231-117-72.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.117.72]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 008.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4YphVl72WZz6CmM6D; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:54:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:54:21 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: ufs: critical health condition To: Avri Altman , "Martin K . Petersen" Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20250204143124.1252912-1-avri.altman@wdc.com> <9ebbd6d9-149f-43cb-b188-bd3a6125654f@acm.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2/6/25 12:54 AM, Avri Altman wrote: > After some further internal discussions: The set conditions are > vendor specific; The device may set it as many times it wants > depending on its criticality. The spec does not define that nor what > the host should do. So there is this concern that some vendors will > report multiple times, while other wont. Hence, reading > critical_health = 1 might be misleading. What do you think? How about emitting a uevent if a critical health condition has been reported by a UFS device? See also sdev_evt_send(). Thanks, Bart.