[linux-yocto][v5.10/standard/base && v5.10/standard/preempt-rt/base][PATCH 1/2] blk-mq: Introduce the BLK_MQ_F_NO_SCHED_BY_DEFAULT flag

2024-03-12 Thread Wentao Zhang via lists.yoctoproject.org
From: Bart Van Assche commit 90b7198001f23ea37d3b46dc631bdaa2357a20b1 upstream. elevator_get_default() uses the following algorithm to select an I/O scheduler from inside add_disk(): - In case of a single hardware queue or if sharing hardware queues across multiple request queues

[linux-yocto][v5.10/standard/base && v5.10/standard/preempt-rt/base][PATCH 2/2] loop: Select I/O scheduler 'none' from inside add_disk()

2024-03-12 Thread Wentao Zhang via lists.yoctoproject.org
From: Bart Van Assche commit 2112f5c1330a671fa852051d85cb9eadc05d7eb7 upstream. We noticed that the user interface of Android devices becomes very slow under memory pressure. This is because Android uses the zram driver on top of the loop driver for swapping, because under memory pressure the

Re: [linux-yocto][v5.10/standard/base && v5.10/standard/preempt-rt/base][PATCH 1/2] blk-mq: Introduce the BLK_MQ_F_NO_SCHED_BY_DEFAULT flag

2024-03-12 Thread Bruce Ashfield
Since this is requested for the common branches and hence all BSPs (This is the right place for a patch like this) ... can you provide some extra context about how they were identified (and tested). Similar to my earlier comment, these in theory should be nominated for -stable. Bruce In

Re: [linux-yocto] Trial merge of v5.15.151 v6.1.81 for linux-yocto

2024-03-12 Thread Bruce Ashfield
In message: Trial merge of v5.15.151 v6.1.81 for linux-yocto on 07/03/2024 Kevin Hao wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > This is a trial merge of the stable kernel v5.15.151 v6.1.81 for the > following branches in the linux-yocto. > ccbd1ffa2151 v5.15/standard/sdkv5.10/axxia > 45a604286a8a

Re: [linux-yocto][linux-yocto v5.15] kernel code for marvell cn96xx

2024-03-12 Thread Bruce Ashfield
In message: [linux-yocto][linux-yocto v5.15] kernel code for marvell cn96xx on 11/03/2024 Ruiqiang Hao via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > Please help to merge this patch into our linux-yocto repo. > > repo: > linux-yocto > branch: >

Re: [linux-yocto] [linux-yocto v6.5 1/1] neighbour: Fix __randomize_layout crash in struct neighbour

2024-03-12 Thread Bruce Ashfield
merged. I'm not updating the 6.5 SRCREVs very often now, so if you need this sooner rather than later, I'd suggest bumping your SRCREVs locally. Bruce In message: [linux-yocto v6.5 1/1] neighbour: Fix __randomize_layout crash in struct neighbour on 12/03/2024 Jon Mason wrote: > From: "Gustavo

Re: [linux-yocto][v5.15/standard/base][PATCH] locking/rwsem: Disable preemption while trying for rwsem lock

2024-03-12 Thread Bruce Ashfield
In message: [linux-yocto][v5.15/standard/base][PATCH] locking/rwsem: Disable preemption while trying for rwsem lock on 10/03/2024 Li Wang via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > From: Gokul krishna Krishnakumar > > commit 48dfb5d2560d36fb16c7d430c229d1604ea7d185 upstream > > Make the region

[linux-yocto] [linux-yocto v6.5 0/1] backport Fix __randomize_layout crash in struct neighbour

2024-03-12 Thread Jon Mason
Linux kernel commit 9aea191c29e18f7c044a2f95a2da7f7b7fdd0449, “gcc-plugins: randstruct: Only warn about true flexible arrays” (backported to 6.5.13 as part of the stable process) introduces a bug, which is preventing networking from functioning (and logging lots of errors in dmesg). Linux kernel

[linux-yocto] [linux-yocto v6.5 1/1] neighbour: Fix __randomize_layout crash in struct neighbour

2024-03-12 Thread Jon Mason
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Previously, one-element and zero-length arrays were treated as true flexible arrays, even though they are actually "fake" flex arrays. The __randomize_layout would leave them untouched at the end of the struct, similarly to proper C99 flex-array members. However,