Friendly ping here. Since no further feedback, would it make sense to set
up a vote on this proposal?

Thanks,
- Enrico


On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 9:55 AM Enrico Granata <[email protected]> wrote:

> I believe the proposal was Acked-By and didn't receive any strong pushback
>
> The only open point of discussion was whether to rename the feature
> flag to F_EMMC_LIFETIME in order to open the door for F_NVME_LIFETIME
> I think, but I didn't hear any comment on that
>
> Thanks,
> - Enrico
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 4:33 AM Cornelia Huck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 5 May 2021 13:37:26 -0600
> > Enrico Granata <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > From: Enrico Granata <[email protected]>
> > > Date: Wed, May 5, 2021 at 1:37 PM
> > > Subject: [PATCH v2] Provide detailed specification of virtio-blk
> > > lifetime metrics
> > > To: <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
> > > <[email protected]>,
> > > <[email protected]>
> > >
> > >
> > > In the course of review, some concerns were surfaced about the
> > > original virtio-blk lifetime proposal, as it depends on the eMMC
> > > spec which is not open
> > >
> > > Add a more detailed description of the meaning of the fields
> > > added by that proposal to the virtio-blk specification, as to
> > > make it feasible to understand and implement the new lifetime
> > > metrics feature without needing to refer to JEDEC's specification
> > >
> > > This patch does not change the meaning of those fields nor add
> > > any new fields, but it is intended to provide an open and more
> > > clear description of the meaning associated with those fields.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Enrico Granata <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2:
> > >   - clarified JEDEC references;
> > >   - added VIRTIO_BLK prefix and cleaned up comment syntax;
> > >   - clarified reserved block references
> > >
> > >  content.tex | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > >  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > Do we have a consent here? I see the mails are not showing up on all of
> > the lists, so I'm a bit confused regarding the state of this...
> >
>

Reply via email to