From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] scsi: ufs: Make sysfs attributes writable Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:01:33 -0700 Message-ID: <20180927140133.GA22096@infradead.org> References: <20180808224454.243790-1-evgreen@chromium.org> <6dd8a547-7260-09b8-9096-8a1564b08e70@intel.com> <8fd05b2d-fa48-78af-6f1c-7e485c1008f6@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Avri Altman Cc: Evan Green , Doug Anderson , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , Vinayak Holikatti , "jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , Stanislav Nijnikov , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Bart Van Assche , "adrian.hunter@intel.com" , sayali List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 06:32:47AM +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > Also, in this context there is the series in > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg123479.html > which allows to send UPIUs via a bsg device. > > It's not a provisioning series per-se like Evan's and Sayali's. > It covers the provisioning functionality, > But also allow to send task management UPIU, and UIC commands, > Which can be used for testing and validation. And as someone having been involved with review of a few different UFS provisioning bits this is what I think we should be merging. Instead of being in a rat race of adding ever new sysfs or configfs attributes for things that don't matter to normal driver operation I'd rather have a relatively clean pass through interface and move policy to userspace. Especially given that there are plenty of vendor specific commands at these levels as well.