Lars, 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. Thanks, //richard
