From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: SEO HOYOUNG <hy50.seo@samsung.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, alim.akhtar@samsung.com,
avri.altman@wdc.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
martin.petersen@oracle.com, beanhuo@micron.com,
asutoshd@codeaurora.org, cang@codeaurora.org, bvanassche@acm.org,
grant.jung@samsung.com, junwoo80.lee@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/2] scsi: ufs: add vendor specific write booster
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:42:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200727144209.GA24271@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8fd7173a76d3508a9470fa49c736a3326bbe59fd.1595850338.git.hy50.seo@samsung.com>
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:17:24PM +0900, SEO HOYOUNG wrote:
> To support the fuction of writebooster by vendor.
> The WB behavior that the vendor wants is slightly different.
> But we have to support it
And why would we give a f*%k what the so called vendor (of what
anyway) wants? Either the policy makes sense and we should adopt it,
or it depends on device parameters and we need to take them into
account.
But these stupid overrides don't make any sense at all. Even less than
all the other ufs crap.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-27 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CGME20200727121701epcas2p345545e515b2f3ef8b951d0134a92d7b8@epcas2p3.samsung.com>
2020-07-27 12:17 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/2] Support vendor specific operations for WB SEO HOYOUNG
[not found] ` <CGME20200727121706epcas2p2403c31848cbaa8fda030b1bc8e76992e@epcas2p2.samsung.com>
2020-07-27 12:17 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] scsi: ufs: modify write booster SEO HOYOUNG
[not found] ` <CGME20200727121708epcas2p17a1fc75b9737ee32d1de64f2fdfcdf9b@epcas2p1.samsung.com>
2020-07-27 12:17 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/2] scsi: ufs: add vendor specific " SEO HOYOUNG
2020-07-27 14:42 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200727144209.GA24271@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
--cc=asutoshd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=beanhuo@micron.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=cang@codeaurora.org \
--cc=grant.jung@samsung.com \
--cc=hy50.seo@samsung.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=junwoo80.lee@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).