On 12/19, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 12:02 -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > This patch introduces sysfs entries to show the information.
>
> What information does "the information" refer to?
>
> Regarding the patch title: I think this patch introduces new sysfs attributes
> instead of using existing sysfs entries. If so, please reflect this in the
> patch
> title.
>
> > # cat /sys/devices/soc/1da4000.ufshc/health/eol
> > # cat /sys/devices/soc/1da4000.ufshc/health/length
> > # cat /sys/devices/soc/1da4000.ufshc/health/lifetimeA
> > # cat /sys/devices/soc/1da4000.ufshc/health/lifetimeB
> > # cat /sys/devices/soc/1da4000.ufshc/health/type
>
> What is the meaning of the above shell commands in the context of the patch
> description?
>
> > struct desc_field_offset health_desc_field_name[] = {
> > {"bLength", 0x00, BYTE},
> > {"bDescriptorType", 0x01, BYTE},
> > {"bPreEOLInfo", 0x02, BYTE},
> > {"bDeviceLifeTimeEstA", 0x03, BYTE},
> > {"bDeviceLifeTimeEstB", 0x04, BYTE}
> > };
>
> Why has the above data been mentioned in the patch description?
>
> > bPreEOLInfo
> > - 00h: Not defined
> > - 01h: Normal
> > - 02h: Warning
> > - 03h: Critical
> >
> > bDeviceLifeTimeEstA
> > - 00h: Not defined
> > - 01h: 0% ~ 10% device life time used
> > - 02h: 10% ~ 20% device life time used
> > - 03h: 20% ~ 30% device life time used
> > - 04h: 30% ~ 40% device life time used
> > - 05h: 40% ~ 50% device life time used
> > - 06h: 50% ~ 60% device life time used
> > - 07h: 60% ~ 70% device life time used
> > - 08h: 70% ~ 80% device life time used
> > - 09h: 80% ~ 90% device life time used
> > - 0Ah: 90% ~ 100% device life time used
> > - 0Bh: Exceeded its maximum estimated device life time
>
> Again, why has the above information been mentioned in the patch description?
Let me send v2.
>
> > +static ssize_t health_attr_show(struct device *dev,
> > + struct health_attr *attr, char *buf)
> > +{
> > + struct ufs_hba *hba = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > + int buff_len = hba->desc_size.health_desc;
> > + u8 desc_buf[hba->desc_size.health_desc];
>
> Is desc_buf[] a variable-length array? If so, how big can
> hba->desc_size.health_desc be? Can that number have a negative value?
IIUC, it is given by UFS which must be valid. Otherwise, it should be
QUERY_DESC_HEALTH_DEF_SIZE which is valid again. This is similarly being
done in other sysfs entries here.
>
> > + return scnprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "0x%02x", desc_buf[attr->bytes]);
>
> Please check whether attr->bytes falls inside the bounds of the desc_buf[]
> array
> before using that value as an index.
Okay.
>
> > +#define HEALTH_ATTR_RO(_name, _bytes)
> > \
> > +static struct health_attr ufs_health_##_name = { \
> > + .attr = {.name = __stringify(_name), .mode = 0444}, \
> > + .show = health_attr_show, \
> > + .bytes = _bytes, \
> > +}
> > +
> > +HEALTH_ATTR_RO(length, 0);
> > +HEALTH_ATTR_RO(type, 1);
> > +HEALTH_ATTR_RO(eol, 2);
> > +HEALTH_ATTR_RO(lifetimeA, 3);
> > +HEALTH_ATTR_RO(lifetimeB, 4);
>
> The above makes clear that the value stored in the structure member with the
> name
> "bytes" represents an array index. Please choose a better name for that
> structure
> member.
Changed to byte_offset.
> Additionally, since this patch introduces new sysfs attributes, why doesn't it
> add any documentation under Documentation/ABI/?
Added.
Thanks,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
