Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:50:47 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc:     Lars Persson <lists@bofh.nu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, Martinbayern@outlook.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 069/101] ubi: fastmap: Correctly handle interrupted
 erasures in EBA
Message-ID: <20180924105047.GA16476@kroah.com>
References: <20180701160757.138608453@linuxfoundation.org>
 <2076412.mQRaXglRsh@blindfold>
 <CADnJP=sJE6hpG6inp5Yu+5P2F-d0=6GP-2dAXJTmBOb_rPzgvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1657546.ePJIJPgWtA@blindfold>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1657546.ePJIJPgWtA@blindfold>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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