In D44961#1025280, @asomers wrote:

What is an "OOA queue"?

I wonder what is your queue depth, so that one message per request per 90 seconds would cause a noticeable storm. Also per-system limiting makes output not very useful, since it does not say much useful about LUNs, ports, commands, etc due to selecting first message out of many, only that something is wrong. Thinking even wider, I find those messages printed on actual completion not very useful, since if there are not a delays, but something is really wrong, the commands many never complete and so the messages may never get printed. I wonder if instead removing all this and once per second checking OOA queues for stuck requests and printing some digests would be more useful.

Looks good to me, but if you wish, couple cosmetic thoughts.

Looks good to me, though seems only cosmetic.

I don't have any chip documentation to know what is right here, so just wonder if unconditional printing a bunch of raw hex numbers is expected here. It feels mpi3mr_print_fault_info() is another candidate for mpi3mr_dprint().

I am not a big fan of kernel printing something in response to arbitrary user requests, it makes logs messy. Is the error reporting to user is not enough here?

Why not backport 506fe78c48 instead?

My only complaint is that it puts the queue into the same cache line as the main queue, that may be modified by writers. But if you really need it for debugging, it could be understood.

On failure we've already notified consumers that controller has failed. What will report it is back? And is there even a device to sent request IOCTL?

If you say it helps I have no objections, but I see nvme_sim_controller_fail() destroying SIM, so I am not sure you actually get here.

I wonder if there are any namespace-specific events? I remember NVMe specs allow per-namespace SMART, but I don't remember much details now.

In D39620#1008905, @sean_rogue-research.com wrote:

stable/13 has this patch
releng/13.2 doesn't have this patch (yet).

I'm not very familiar with FreeBSD's branching system... I see FreeBSD 13.3-RELEASE was released today, is this bug fix included?

In D43385#989072, @gallatin wrote:

Is it possible that the firmware could set ACPI_HEST_GEN_ERROR_FATAL in ged->ErrorSeverity but not ges->ErrorSeverity ?

There is already a panic in apei_ge_handler(), based on total status severity. Do you see it not enough?

Not very my area, but seems to have sense.

This is already merged.