On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 08:32:12AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > 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. Thank you, as I am totally confused here... greg k-h
