linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: Add temperature notification exception handling

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: <46a7ea4f-2c6b-7798-5845-ad47c64617dd@acm.org>
Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 09:39:30 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: Add temperature notification exception
 handling

On 9/1/21 5:37 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> It is essentially up to the platform to decide what further actions need
> to be taken. So add a designated vop for that.  Each chipset vendor can
> decide if it wants to use the thermal subsystem, hw monitor, or some
> Privet implementation.

Why to make chipset vendors define what to do in case of extreme 
temperatures? I'd prefer a single implementation in ufshcd.c instead of 
making each vendor come up with a different implementation.

> +	void	(*temp_notify)(struct ufs_hba *hba, u16 status);

Please do not add new vops without adding at least one implementation of 
that vop.

Thanks,

Bart.