RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Updates for CXL Event Records

[Shiju Jose]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: 18 October 2024 12:04
>To: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx; dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx; alison.schofield@xxxxxxxxx;
>vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx; ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx; dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
>cxl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linuxarm
><linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxx>; tanxiaofei <tanxiaofei@xxxxxxxxxx>; Zengtao (B)
><prime.zeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Updates for CXL Event Records
>
>On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:33:45 +0100
><shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> From: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> CXL spec rev 3.1 CXL Event Records has updated w.r.t CXL spec rev 3.0.
>> Add updates for the above spec changes in the CXL events records and
>> CXL trace events implementation.
>>
>> Note: Please apply following fix patch first if not present.
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/cxl/patch/20241014143003.1170-1-s
>> hiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> Shiju Jose (4):
>>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL Common Event Record Format
>>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL General Media Event Record
>>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL DRAM Event Record
>>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL Memory Module Event Record
>>
>>  drivers/cxl/core/trace.h | 201 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>  include/cxl/event.h      |  20 +++-
>>  2 files changed, 190 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>
>
>Hi Shiju,
>
>Why are these an RFC?  Seem in a good state to me and the questions I'm seeing
>are naming stuff that to me doesn't justify RFC status.
>
>Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

I add RFC since it is v1.  I will exclude RFC in v2.  

Thanks,
Shiju