[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b1e555c2-a59a-2a63-79e0-7c22d5b7b698@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:03:33 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>, asutoshd@...eaurora.org,
nguyenb@...eaurora.org, hongwus@...eaurora.org,
ziqichen@...eaurora.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Cc: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
Keoseong Park <keosung.park@...sung.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>,
Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 9/9] scsi: ufs: Apply more limitations to user access
On 6/9/21 9:43 PM, Can Guo wrote:
> Do not let user access HW if hba resume fails or hba is not in good state,
> otherwise it may lead to various stability issues.
Just like for the previous patch, I'm wondering whether or not such a
failure perhaps indicates a hardware bug?
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists