From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 013.lax.mailroute.net (013.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79C7135A95A; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 22:59:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769813951; cv=none; b=nTNj6OMllJZ6bE/hD8Oc2Df3UFd1ylH1u4jcVctTkg6HWwxQtuPfHYPQUSiEJHGqsZcoG5/oH4rDK1oc0IhKQS3ohUWUzUqjaYT1Y/FXZd7QIfvQHZPzLEik32xNPzX9cOhtSZ04Vrc1RF9Bgkq8RYQJ5zxHNfLiz/REdg1Kn/4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769813951; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pGZCdfTqJZsczKLbgP8aETuCtwVHrNt9P39BRiViQ1g=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=qjQqLoRr6g4fvpxcq0r0MheajFzPM2dsaDwuhZYKoizfzs9lWi3NDGDWkjEoVgQmQtLfi38s7ZoEXDKvAiVxUaXeJGAfb/E0E+mQit4iH5DGSBuxXfO09Zt8YqDi3Di4vM4nJzwv+5MeT77GfcK19EzQgmmMHPZ4dy8GY5mvIzk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=QTk5ow9G; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="QTk5ow9G" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 013.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4f2rzX4wHrzm4ql0; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 22:59:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1769813942; x=1772405943; bh=pGZCdfTqJZsczKLbgP8aETuC twVHrNt9P39BRiViQ1g=; b=QTk5ow9G2TWbxVMxrX4lXhMSMGVYdJCx5sgAI6g+ DvXEr0Dfl4mFpCNDj+rePLRl1xHfv3kOiZC78rLfcWYDE7t36Mu8sm5BNallsfrD q8dJMWUicsgcJ15Xpi1aW11ZTMcCLVTQH5I1eKTsjyroBiJZNyKFzQ4g2o7fprqA hBlgr/38v4a9BKiDtHo3KmvUZda3Icp2uFiuJtEJPPPTpK6puBucqhTZF4kcSPfu LAUYiqX3HT+b9+x1FoQvkzQgi1DGfFk7Y+UynoRvp0fWAd2Wjcz5gLHUrJqm9k2I 6pI4tdBb+dNAd5qdVg7C2tgNuapW7ok6gVjRa9YQMxjYSw== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 013.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (013.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id YmmZJXQ3CZ6w; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 22:59:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.119.48.131] (unknown [104.135.180.219]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 013.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4f2rzR6Blvzm4qkw; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 22:58:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:58:59 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] scsi: ufs: core: Flush exception handling work when RPM level is zero To: Thomas Yen Cc: Stable Tree , Alim Akhtar , Avri Altman , "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , Peter Wang , Bean Huo , Adrian Hunter , "Bao D. Nguyen" , "open list:UNIVERSAL FLASH STORAGE HOST CONTROLLER DRIVER" , open list References: <20260129070657.678532-1-thomasyen@google.com> <491d53b9-a110-431b-9a5e-3b46d833fdbb@acm.org> <076fe171-6fd3-4dbc-9876-242905379594@acm.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/29/26 9:39 AM, Thomas Yen wrote: > My apologies. I missed that Peter had already replied with his > Reviewed-by tag on this v3 thread before I sent v4. In the future, please leave more time between posting different versions of a patch. Posting four versions of the same patch in five days is too frequent because it doesn't give reviewers enough time to react. Thanks, Bart.