From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: minwoo.im.dev@gmail.com (Minwoo Im)
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 18:48:57 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] nvme-cli add ns write protect support
In-Reply-To: <20180803024343.4088-1-chaitanya.kulkarni@wdc.com>
References: <20180803024343.4088-1-chaitanya.kulkarni@wdc.com>
Message-ID: <1533289737.2982.5.camel@gmail.com>

Hi Chaitanya,

On Thu, 2018-08-02@19:43 -0700, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanya.kulkarni at wdc.com>

> @@ -1549,6 +1573,7 @@ char *nvme_status_to_string(__u32 status)
> ?	case NVME_SC_SANITIZE_FAILED:		return "SANITIZE_FAILED: The most recent sanitize operation failed and no recovery actions has been successfully completed";
> ?	case NVME_SC_SANITIZE_IN_PROGRESS:	return "SANITIZE_IN_PROGRESS: The requested function is prohibited while a sanitize operation is in progress";
> ?	case NVME_SC_LBA_RANGE:			return "LBA_RANGE: The command references a LBA that exceeds the size of the namespace";
> +	case NVME_SC_NS_WRITE_PROTECTED:	return "Namespace Write Protected";

Not bad, but if you don't mind, can we change the description to something
like below just like the others.

NS_WRITE_PROTECTED: The command is prohibited while the namespace is write
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? protected by the host.

This sentence is exactly as it is in TP 4005a.

Thanks,
	Minwoo Im