From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 004.mia.mailroute.net (004.mia.mailroute.net [199.89.3.7]) (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 3822C30DD1E; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 15:28:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.7 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757345296; cv=none; b=niS9//dqOtCIneGBmFVNDnlt+VSiBvVBUq54d/xfA3L0tzTZ01BxVd73CX+FKKOqgx88FFIVnWgZPPPtQbYRTRN/Bs6xXdfx9+EbJUxx/bEMN6bFe4Fmoex9a/t/bgGqX21V2Hkssl7ROG5Ka3G0qRITH/4z3MOjHZz7RjYvdog= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757345296; c=relaxed/simple; bh=IL9lnqQXoeEQECYNv61WPi9hBHFk6AjV/ccUc6R4VhA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=fOFcNZF9EZBWPSZu/Nr2pU4eAGSznPWDqU6YgOAATAF3xpDZg36pSyvtxmyq9H8/moCrX0tZh71xlch5J4oomJCpLjCQViSVWry0OPbaH8jM9IUk+Y/m2M2kF4fE0QY84uDPz7Tw+yjITML7eogmfu1ZVagxmWtsFMdPB1S0E+M= 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=HX1WumBP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.7 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="HX1WumBP" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 004.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4cL9ng4tgMzm0ysv; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 15:28:07 +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=1757345284; x=1759937285; bh=ZmP43ztIWQvs8cAYII3r0KAQ bnKcLwOTP/pXj06Tob0=; b=HX1WumBP9tHG3MvDrbxHauDTh3flyaZ+1d4u2qsP YqLR0qhAL3boFjIV1GN+jbMksvOoIXdiXXUyUYpbMpya8JBQilXwFjX4w5furYy+ zbQltR3Eo3cOfuDJ8c4/pHtxfKRNQZJrtFqL2mFmMJu5n767l2Vz/WxdppzEm6I9 Z5t2wnqQb+FuCtxBEn7aWB6kiPRb2SRJYlQMfYVc6efcPAPaS8S+VtsDNpHUgN/L CctChEd8pKbm3B4vUGHpxfLEebEq1rhM00bZCluPkC9WJ4ilSld9+/FEyvWKWOYk kIjP4CA9+ubPPigPw7pHSnMc+zFBcr8MS5R2C2gqweDxMA== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 004.mia.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (004.mia [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id LpbeJA7ztnSv; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 15:28:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.66.154.22] (unknown [104.135.204.82]) (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 004.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4cL9nN3RF3zm0yT6; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 15:27:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 08:27:50 -0700 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 1/2] scsi: ufs: Add an enum for ufs_trace to check ufs cmd error To: DooHyun Hwang , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alim.akhtar@samsung.com, avri.altman@wdc.com, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, peter.wang@mediatek.com, manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org, quic_mnaresh@quicinc.com Cc: grant.jung@samsung.com, jt77.jang@samsung.com, junwoo80.lee@samsung.com, jangsub.yi@samsung.com, sh043.lee@samsung.com, cw9316.lee@samsung.com, sh8267.baek@samsung.com, wkon.kim@samsung.com References: <20250417023405.6954-1-dh0421.hwang@samsung.com> <20250417023405.6954-2-dh0421.hwang@samsung.com> <239ea120-841f-478d-b6b4-9627aa453795@acm.org> <093601dc1ae0$2389c460$6a9d4d20$@samsung.com> <27882582-58b8-4ac2-9596-3602098e7c1d@acm.org> <17db01dc1ba6$41d37350$c57a59f0$@samsung.com> <6e854090-a071-416a-b7a5-cc8ee0122a90@acm.org> <2add01dc1c9d$7b5cba30$72162e90$@samsung.com> <854fad23-e7f8-42c8-b0e2-03460f481366@acm.org> <561a01dc2094$51b24b00$f516e100$@samsung.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <561a01dc2094$51b24b00$f516e100$@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/8/25 12:43 AM, DooHyun Hwang wrote: > Would it be acceptable to add UFS_UIC_SEND, UFS_UIC_COMP, > and UFS_UIC_ERR at the end of the enum? > > I am aware that UFS_DEV_COMP is currently not used in the code, > but I am concerned about whether it is appropriate to modify > or remove existing enum labels. Please take a look at Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst. While the Android GKI kernels have a stable ABI, the upstream kernel does not promise a stable ABI. Hence, the concerns that apply to GKI kernels regarding changing the numerical value of enum labels do not apply to the upstream kernel. It is the responsibility of anyone who backports an upstream patch to a GKI kernel branch to make sure that the GKI ABI is not modified. Thanks, Bart.