Re: [PATCH 4.9 069/101] ubi: fastmap: Correctly handle interrupted erasures in EBA
From: Greg KH
Date: Mon Sep 24 2018 - 06:50:55 EST
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 08:32:12AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 23. September 2018, 15:49:42 CEST schrieb Lars Persson:
> > Hi Richard
> > Sorry, I assumed this omission from -stable was a mistake.
> > The timing for our boot increased from 45 seconds to 55 seconds on one
> > chip and 42 seconds to 48 seconds on another chip. The regression was
> > completely fixed by applying the extra patches. The way I see it the
> > first patch is a significant slow-down so the second patch is required
> > to restore performance.
> okay, this is not good. Let's put the performance patch also into -stable
> to get rid of that regression.
> Usually I'm rather conservative with adding non-trivial material to -stable.
> As history has shown, Fastmap is special. ;-)
> Out of interest, what flashes are these? I'm interested in page vs. erase size.
> Did you give UBIFS bulk-read try?
> Greg, I'll send another mail which will state what patches are needed.
Thank you, as I am totally confused here...