linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] nvmet: Rapid Path Failure Recovery set controller identify fields

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: <35ae10c9-808a-4882-86dc-311b23c821e5@grimberg.me>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2026 15:41:29 +0200
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
 Mohamed Khalfella <mkhalfella@...estorage.com>
Cc: Justin Tee <justin.tee@...adcom.com>,
 Naresh Gottumukkala <nareshgottumukkala83@...il.com>,
 Paul Ely <paul.ely@...adcom.com>, Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
 Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
 Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Aaron Dailey <adailey@...estorage.com>,
 Randy Jennings <randyj@...estorage.com>,
 Dhaval Giani <dgiani@...estorage.com>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] nvmet: Rapid Path Failure Recovery set
 controller identify fields


> Precisely my point. If CQT defaults to zero no delay will be inserted,
> but we _still_ have CCR handling. Just proving that both really are
> independent on each other. Hence I would prefer to have two patchsets.

Agreed. I think it would be cleaner to review each separately. the CCR 
can be based
on top of the CQT patchset, for simplicity.