Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: ufs: critical health condition

[Bart Van Assche]

On 2/6/25 12:54 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> After some further internal discussions: The set conditions are
> vendor specific; The device may set it as many times it wants
> depending on its criticality. The spec does not define that nor what
> the host should do. So there is this concern that some vendors will
> report multiple times, while other wont. Hence, reading
> critical_health = 1 might be misleading. What do you think?

How about emitting a uevent if a critical health condition has been
reported by a UFS device? See also sdev_evt_send().

Thanks,

Bart.