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 bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 587E1C3ABAC for ; Sat, 3 May 2025 03:46:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=vU9ZUo64QD4UA1qeXQwBzwLAxuQVVlCjsAPF9UmwhA0=; b=SOkO/Mgkx1jzeeViLRjyVrpzWH vMIgiQ5BPN5hmkhUr1c3vtskW+bJCcuZvBEeMyNo9KJTpj8Coaw5GurdyWB6OAapUUaITOEtZpNeK r26vI38lC+l2w4N8tJObjosrSwXjKqjZpnYH9fYT3GLQ/DlitnltClGP49yZ1rphs+5f8R4Ibl3Vx g5JSgPnSAj33kdsyh161OahVo5qSIHKsAPqTUaA8g5Sy1psVoQxoB5EDVlpMzi45G8V0YY/2VwxbQ WaFm/DC72gbrNaIji8XX+vBvNFB8DDA9FfjfvN//EmXXShif1s6F+lU7QQoi2F8ZxVpQolND0VHBb QYCHoOKQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uB3pO-00000003SLm-089R; Sat, 03 May 2025 03:46:14 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uB3pL-00000003SLP-2K87 for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 03 May 2025 03:46:12 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815C443A48; Sat, 3 May 2025 03:46:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41763C4CEE3; Sat, 3 May 2025 03:46:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1746243968; bh=Fmgv9Cp8dolCTo5O2sjLH6PKjP7SgvgvacCW80opf3Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=XlYD9+E8ek88N7FQw6vE9FsTFmo6juAhq2j4IxjFlaZ5QOqrugFf5q1yZPexdWgQB QOTV7lWd1VaGjEOk+BCPt50GyG1QoWuB7ESsYOeOTPI8Jk8w6fpXARa2YqLllXHcKj ZAmSqhyr8kAS/K5vcQZYVNae3Lo3tiMHL+6EhXlAcADhetfBWmZLhjNGrpZVRMlC6Z ivHFEjxweZ3r25PKX9OPS7bmbdWRMLeecjFfb+dgfOt1Fgm5VyDEQQnTgNTm89ihz+ 1ZKBOVJpb+vKGI1Zn93AvW0V6BJdsH+Cm2dejh23NGwSk9tZspsiNGcB69OtyBbxGp aaLsTG+vWOrAA== Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 21:46:06 -0600 From: Keith Busch To: Judy Brock Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "Ballard, Curtis C (HPE Storage)" , Hannes Reinecke , "hare@kernel.org" , Sagi Grimberg , "wagi@lst.de" , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" , Javier Gonzalez Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] nvme: handle partially unique NID value Message-ID: References: <20250414090959.2015-1-hare@kernel.org> <20250414111916.GB13225@lst.de> <3e6fb1f6-d6f0-4f33-9389-dff37daae7b0@suse.de> <20250414114128.GA13822@lst.de> <20250502102505.GA13055@lst.de> <27a99b458f0144fba094726e4f470552@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27a99b458f0144fba094726e4f470552@samsung.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250502_204611_614760_27B6758F X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 10.72 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 11:26:47PM +0000, Judy Brock wrote: > For example, both companies have "admitted failure" but you haven't > heard it: the FW in question definitely has a defect. Neither company > is holding it out as compliant. Both companies have indicated going > forward, the defective behavior has been corrected. > > Not sure why you keep saying that neither company is willing to fix it. I'm a little confused. If the conflicting behavior has been corrected, why is this being discussed here? A device side fix is surely the best possible outcome for everyone here. Requiring a kernel upgrade to work around undesirable firmware behavior is a bit unpleasant for end users when you already have a solution that works with any nvme capable OS. ?