[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161220061744.GB4765@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 22:17:44 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Scott Bauer <scott.bauer@...el.com>
Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, Rafael.Antognolli@...el.com,
axboe@...com, jonathan.derrick@...el.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
hch@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sagi@...mberg.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] nvme: Implement resume_from_suspend and SED
Allocation code.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 03:23:12PM -0700, Scott Bauer wrote:
> I went back and reviewed the spec 1.2.1:
>
> http://www.nvmexpress.org/wp-content/uploads/NVM_Express_1_2_1_Gold_20160603.pdf
> Section 5.18 (page 140->141)
>
> Describes the security send command type and it doesn't have any reference of
> a namespace ID. Anecdotally, I just removed the ns->ns_id line from the code and
> everything still works as intended. Is there another portion of the spec or errata
> that requires ns_id? (I can't access 1.2.1 errta the link doesn't work).
As far as I can tell Security Send / Receive has always been intended to
apply to the whole controller, even if that's something I would not
personally think is a good idea.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists