On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 09:41:14AM -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > Hmmm . . . Bruce said that the ubuntu patch didn't apply for him, so I > > haven't tried that. > > > > Do you have a kirkstone patch that I can try on the autobuilder? > > > > I'd still rather not go the ubuntu patch route. It is my last choice in the > options. > > If this is caused by upstream commits, there should also be upstream > commits that fix the issues. I need to identify those commits and > document why they aren't appropriate for our 5.15 kernel before I pick > up someone's else patch .. since at that point, I have no idea about their > logic and other issues it may introduce.
Agreed. But that patch is indeed a backport of upstream commit b9684a71fca7 and the tweak in order to port to v5.15 also seems pretty reasonable. I generated a patch based on the latest kirkstone branch. Steve, could you give the attachment a try? Thanks, Kevin
From dca6a0cec06a1688881d697bd255eff05b474c3e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kevin Hao <kexin....@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:31:26 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] linux-yocto: Don't merge: Fix the parted ptest failues Signed-off-by: Kevin Hao <kexin....@windriver.com> --- ...-support-partitions-without-scanning.patch | 104 ++++++++++++++++++ meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_5.15.bb | 3 +- 2 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/linux/files/0001-block-loop-support-partitions-without-scanning.patch diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/files/0001-block-loop-support-partitions-without-scanning.patch b/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/files/0001-block-loop-support-partitions-without-scanning.patch new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..f77b0e9eb00a --- /dev/null +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/files/0001-block-loop-support-partitions-without-scanning.patch @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +From 82fad6e9334f1239fe090def17ca947c89fc4308 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> +Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 07:58:06 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH] block, loop: support partitions without scanning + +BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2056143 + +Historically we did distinguish between a flag that surpressed partition +scanning, and a combinations of the minors variable and another flag if +any partitions were supported. This was generally confusing and doesn't +make much sense, but some corner case uses of the loop driver actually +do want to support manually added partitions on a device that does not +actively scan for partitions. To make things worsee the loop driver +also wants to dynamically toggle the scanning for partitions on a live +gendisk, which makes the disk->flags updates non-atomic. + +Introduce a new GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN bit in disk->state that disables +just scanning for partitions, and toggle that instead of GENHD_FL_NO_PART +in the loop driver. + +Upstream-Status: Backport [c3032b60ff7b3948325b8f2bd688b9a74be3cfb9] + +Fixes: 1ebe2e5f9d68 ("block: remove GENHD_FL_EXT_DEVT") +Reported-by: Ming Lei <ming....@redhat.com> +Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> +Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming....@redhat.com> +Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220527055806.1972352-1-...@lst.de +Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <ax...@kernel.dk> + +(backported from commit b9684a71fca793213378dd410cd11675d973eaa1) +[smb: Flag and test for partition scan in genhd.h instead] +Signed-off-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.ba...@canonical.com> +Acked-by: Roxana Nicolescu <roxana.nicole...@canonical.com> +Acked-by: Manuel Diewald <manuel.diew...@canonical.com> +Signed-off-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.ba...@canonical.com> +--- + drivers/block/loop.c | 8 ++++---- + include/linux/genhd.h | 3 +++ + 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c +index 4769caab9ff9..a76302450c46 100644 +--- a/drivers/block/loop.c ++++ b/drivers/block/loop.c +@@ -1332,7 +1332,7 @@ static int loop_configure(struct loop_device *lo, fmode_t mode, + lo->lo_flags |= LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN; + partscan = lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN; + if (partscan) +- lo->lo_disk->flags &= ~GENHD_FL_NO_PART; ++ clear_bit(GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN, &lo->lo_disk->state); + + /* enable and uncork uevent now that we are done */ + dev_set_uevent_suppress(disk_to_dev(lo->lo_disk), 0); +@@ -1481,7 +1481,7 @@ static int __loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo, bool release) + mutex_lock(&lo->lo_mutex); + lo->lo_flags = 0; + if (!part_shift) +- lo->lo_disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_NO_PART; ++ set_bit(GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN, &lo->lo_disk->state); + lo->lo_state = Lo_unbound; + mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_mutex); + +@@ -1598,7 +1598,7 @@ loop_set_status(struct loop_device *lo, const struct loop_info64 *info) + + if (!err && (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN) && + !(prev_lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN)) { +- lo->lo_disk->flags &= ~GENHD_FL_NO_PART; ++ clear_bit(GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN, &lo->lo_disk->state); + partscan = true; + } + out_unlock: +@@ -2428,7 +2428,7 @@ static int loop_add(int i) + * userspace tools. Parameters like this in general should be avoided. + */ + if (!part_shift) +- disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_NO_PART; ++ set_bit(GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN, &disk->state); + disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_EXT_DEVT; + atomic_set(&lo->lo_refcnt, 0); + mutex_init(&lo->lo_mutex); +diff --git a/include/linux/genhd.h b/include/linux/genhd.h +index 690b7f7996d1..fc69ab1751c2 100644 +--- a/include/linux/genhd.h ++++ b/include/linux/genhd.h +@@ -132,6 +132,7 @@ struct gendisk { + #define GD_READ_ONLY 1 + #define GD_DEAD 2 + #define GD_NATIVE_CAPACITY 3 ++#define GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN 5 + + struct mutex open_mutex; /* open/close mutex */ + unsigned open_partitions; /* number of open partitions */ +@@ -185,6 +186,8 @@ static inline int disk_max_parts(struct gendisk *disk) + + static inline bool disk_part_scan_enabled(struct gendisk *disk) + { ++ if (test_bit(GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN, &disk->state)) ++ return 0; + return disk_max_parts(disk) > 1 && !(disk->flags & GENHD_FL_NO_PART); + } + +-- +2.44.0 + diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_5.15.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_5.15.bb index 9a7c96b4539a..8f63a4954fc4 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_5.15.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_5.15.bb @@ -36,7 +36,8 @@ PN:class-devupstream = "linux-yocto-upstream" KBRANCH:class-devupstream = "v5.15/base" SRC_URI = "git://git.yoctoproject.org/linux-yocto.git;name=machine;branch=${KBRANCH}; \ - git://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-kernel-cache;type=kmeta;name=meta;branch=yocto-5.15;destsuffix=${KMETA}" + git://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-kernel-cache;type=kmeta;name=meta;branch=yocto-5.15;destsuffix=${KMETA} \ + file://0001-block-loop-support-partitions-without-scanning.patch" LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=6bc538ed5bd9a7fc9398086aedcd7e46" LINUX_VERSION ?= "5.15.148" -- 2.44.0
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#196853): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/196853 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/104794844/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
