From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B639FC433FE for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:51:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230511AbiKJNvD (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:51:03 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35604 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229759AbiKJNvB (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:51:01 -0500 Received: from mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de (mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de [85.215.255.52]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41815CE0; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 05:50:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1668088250; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=iokpp.de; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Cc:Date: From:Subject:Sender; bh=L6wvDDhXKUzII32ywi5QeK1Fitev1Yi4DtJi2jmWynw=; b=hDDgMl/9pDYuVxCZO9yeomuGvAHvl3zMfAYDx5fB+1GHAQdkO0LiQEq76OqnTIjEmP Rejwuap91u2H1z9n4QQ+QGf9FurC8QJYtRbqzQSxkDVLyWK3n13aJiDDpcNVdY+lplnJ QkJw80tZO7IAXLhKXhB/JaIoaISQ7oFmtYKpSSID21kjgrA47vRnnD9tNbjvUaT08hoj 5f+bRRvlnNsIH5cf7/sP8SlflhXw0pMJqbm+2QAOVgZoprqm9Ff3oDdcmsPWX68NSXe6 KpMZMgEEEidPeOCg9y0ZGI4RmQr1kGnmYMyk2SJcEOHRt7Swd4EozU2Y1Wp4FfweqLYO xVfQ== Authentication-Results: strato.com; dkim=none X-RZG-AUTH: ":LmkFe0i9dN8c2t4QQyGBB/NDXvjDB6pBSeBwhhSxarlUcu05JCAPyj3VPAceccYJs0uz" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from blinux by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 48.2.1 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id z9cfbfyAADolxCp (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:50:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <95651ffcf1d00f54b72eca006355cc6591787068.camel@iokpp.de> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] UFS Advanced RPMB From: Bean Huo To: Avri Altman , "alim.akhtar@samsung.com" , "jejb@linux.ibm.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "stanley.chu@mediatek.com" , "beanhuo@micron.com" , "bvanassche@acm.org" , "tomas.winkler@intel.com" , "daejun7.park@samsung.com" , "quic_cang@quicinc.com" , "quic_nguyenb@quicinc.com" , "quic_xiaosenh@quicinc.com" , "quic_richardp@quicinc.com" , "quic_asutoshd@quicinc.com" , "hare@suse.de" Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:50:47 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20221107131038.201724-1-beanhuo@iokpp.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5-0ubuntu1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Avri, Thanks for your suggetions and review On Wed, 2022-11-09 at 08:18 +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > > In UFS 4.0, it introduced advanced RPMB, which can significantly > > improve > > RPMB's command performance, enhancing its atomic operation. We > > don't > > know which implementation will please everyone, mark this advanced > > RPMB > > patch as RFC. Any suggestions to make the patch a master patch are > > welcome. > > Based on suggestions and feedback from Hannes Reinecke and Bart, we > > can > > use job_bsg->request and job_bsg->reply to pass EHS packets without > > changing > > the BSG V4 structure and BSG core. So we push RFC patch just to > > start > > Advanced RPMB mainlining > > I concur with this approach. > > The current limitations that the new spec imposes, > > e.g. putting confidential data in a construct that lives in the ufs- > driver, > > practically gives no other alternative but ufs-bsg. > > > > If no one else object, maybe you can leave out the rfc from the next > version. > > I will prepare next version, and address your all questions in the next version. thanks. Kind regards, Bean