linux-kernel - RE: [RFC v1 1/1] scsi: ufs: core: Add device level exeption support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID:
 <PH7PR16MB61967197DC9C471F95536229E5C42@PH7PR16MB6196.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:01:23 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@...disk.com>
To: "Bao D. Nguyen" <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>, "quic_cang@...cinc.com"
	<quic_cang@...cinc.com>, "quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com"
	<quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>, "bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>,
	"avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>, "peter.wang@...iatek.com"
	<peter.wang@...iatek.com>, "manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org"
	<manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>, "minwoo.im@...sung.com"
	<minwoo.im@...sung.com>, "adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, Alim Akhtar
	<alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, "James E.J. Bottomley"
	<James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, Keoseong Park
	<keosung.park@...sung.com>, Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>, Al Viro
	<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>, Andrew
 Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>, open list
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC v1 1/1] scsi: ufs: core: Add device level exeption support

> @@ -419,6 +421,7 @@ enum {
>  	MASK_EE_TOO_LOW_TEMP		= BIT(4),
>  	MASK_EE_WRITEBOOSTER_EVENT	= BIT(5),
>  	MASK_EE_PERFORMANCE_THROTTLING	= BIT(6),
> +	MASK_EE_DEV_LVL_EXCEPTION	= BIT(7),
>  };
I think you need to rebase your work - most probably for-next is best.

Thanks,
Avri