linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] scsi: ufs: introduce vendor isr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <000601d78cf2$a160f820$e422e860$@samsung.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:46:14 +0900
From:   "Kiwoong Kim" <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>
To:     "'Bart Van Assche'" <bvanassche@....org>,
        <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, <avri.altman@....com>,
        <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        <beanhuo@...ron.com>, <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, <sc.suh@...sung.com>,
        <hy50.seo@...sung.com>, <sh425.lee@...sung.com>,
        <bhoon95.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] scsi: ufs: introduce vendor isr

> How about extending the UFS spec instead of adding a non-standard
> mechanism in a driver that is otherwise based on a standard?

It seems to be a great approach but I wonder if extending for the events
that all the SoC vendors require in the spec is recommendable.
Because I think there is quite possible that many of those things are 
originated for architectural reasons.