linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] ufs: core: print UFSHCD capabilities in controller's sysfs node

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <438a9c4c-e601-ec22-0d05-5cec697d06a1@acm.org>
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 10:32:20 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...omium.org>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Keoseong Park <keosung.park@...sung.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        Sohaib Mohamed <sohaib.amhmd@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] ufs: core: print UFSHCD capabilities in controller's
 sysfs node

On 8/1/22 21:12, Daniil Lunev wrote:
>> Calling this the effective capabilities of the controller-device pair
>> sounds good to me. But please do not refer to hba->caps. I'd like to
>> rework hba->caps such that it only includes controller capabilities and
>> no information related to the WriteBooster. Additionally, several UFS
>> device capabilities that may be exported in the future are not
>> represented in hba->caps.
 >
> So can you clarify where specifically do you want me to mention that?
> Should I name the directory "effective_capabilities" or the commit
> message?

I'm fine with the name "capabilities" since "effective_capabilities" is 
a bit long.

How about adding the above explanation in the source code close to the 
definition of the capabilities group since it is more likely that it 
will be noticed there by software developers compared to Documentation/ABI/?

Thanks,

Bart.