Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/21] linux-yocto: combined and consolidated pull request

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/21] linux-yocto: combined and consolidated pull request

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 3:22 PM Bruce Ashfield via
lists.openembedded.org
<bruce.ashfield=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>
> From: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>
>
> Hi all,
>
> As discussed in the weekly engineering call, I'm sending this as
> single series even though it crossed boundaries of the repositories.
>
> I don't have access to meta-yocto-contrib yet, so I haven't pushed
> the component parts to contrib branches yet, but will do that for
> future pull requests.
>
> I'm using this as a first run through some things I've cooked up
> to coordinate the patches across the repos. The formatting is my
> own, so apologies if it isn't clear .. and we'll see if it all
>
> Now to the series for OE-core:
>
>  - We have stable updates to 6.12
>  - A kern-tools fix
>  - Updates to 6.17
>  - Removal of 6.17
>  - Introduction of 6.18
>  - Bump to libc-headers to 6.18
>
> I've built and booted what I can locally, and I know that the
> major architectures work, and are functional with respect to
> core features.
>
> I have more libc-headers testing running against meta-oe and
> muslc, so there may be some breakage there and I'll help deal
> with that if it happens.
>
> The update and then removal of 6.17 is on purpose. In case any
> one was using it, they should get the latest tested before it
> starts to be removed.
>
> For meta-yocto:
>
>   - removal of any remaining 6.17 references
>   - introduction of 6.18
>
> The meta-yocto default changes are obviously REALLY RFC/RFT
> there will be issues, but I've provided them anyway to make it
> clear that we are going to 6.18 as the new default for all the
> variants.
>
> Once we get 6.18 fully green and the h/w references udpated,
> I'll remove 6.12 and 6.16 from master. That isn't in this series
> by design.


FYI: my extended testing shows a warning in the virtualization
fragments. It isn't serious, but will be fixed in incremental patches
on the end of this queue.

Bruce

>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
> Aggregate summary of exported patches:
>
>  - openembedded-core branch=master : 15 patches
>  - meta-yocto branch=master : 6 patches
>
> Changes:
>   [01/15][openembedded-core] kern-tools: fix commit SHA reproducibility
>   [02/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.12: update to v6.12.61
>   [03/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.12: update CVE exclusions
>   [04/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.12: update to v6.12.62
>   [05/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.12: update CVE exclusions
>   [06/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.16: rust kernel configs
>   [07/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.17: update to v6.17.11
>   [08/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.17: update CVE exclusions
>   [09/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.17: rust kernel configs
>   [10/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.17: drop recipes
>   [11/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.18: introduce reference
>   [12/15][openembedded-core] linux-libc-headers: update to 6.18
>   [13/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.18: rust kernel configs
>   [14/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.18: update to v6.18.1
>   [15/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.18: update CVE exclusions
>   [01/06][meta-yocto] yocto-bsp: introduce 6.18 h/w reference
>   [02/06][meta-yocto] yocto-bsp/6.17: drop bbappend
>   [03/06][meta-yocto] poky-tiny: make 6.18 preferred kernel version
>   [04/06][meta-yocto] poky: make 6.18 preferred kernel version
>   [05/06][meta-yocto] poky-alt: make default kernel 6.18
>   [06/06][meta-yocto] yocto-bsp: genericx86: bump default kernel to 6.18
>
> ---
> Diffstat:
>   openembedded-core:
>     .../kern-tools/kern-tools-native_git.bb            |    2 +-
>     ...-headers_6.17.bb => linux-libc-headers_6.18.bb} |    3 +-
>     meta/recipes-kernel/linux/cve-exclusion_6.12.inc   |  632 +++++++++++-
>     ...e-exclusion_6.17.inc => cve-exclusion_6.18.inc} | 1040 ++++++++++++++++----
>     meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_6.12.bb   |    6 +-
>     meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_6.16.bb   |    2 +-
>     ...nux-yocto-rt_6.17.bb => linux-yocto-rt_6.18.bb} |   12 +-
>     meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-tiny_6.12.bb |    6 +-
>     meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-tiny_6.16.bb |    2 +-
>     ...yocto-tiny_6.17.bb => linux-yocto-tiny_6.18.bb} |   12 +-
>     meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.12.bb      |   28 +-
>     meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.16.bb      |    4 +-
>     .../{linux-yocto_6.17.bb => linux-yocto_6.18.bb}   |   52 +-
>     13 files changed, 1526 insertions(+), 275 deletions(-)
>
>   meta-yocto:
>     meta-poky/conf/distro/include/poky-distro-alt-test-config.inc         | 2 +-
>     meta-poky/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf                                  | 2 +-
>     meta-poky/conf/distro/poky.conf                                       | 4 ++--
>     meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/include/genericx86-common.inc             | 2 +-
>     .../linux/{linux-yocto_6.17.bbappend => linux-yocto_6.18.bbappend}    | 4 ++--
>     5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.39.2
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#228143): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/228143
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/116848895/1050810
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [bruce.ashfield@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>


-- 
- Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end
- "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/21] linux-yocto: combined and consolidated pull request

[Mathieu Dubois-Briand]

On Thu Dec 18, 2025 at 9:56 PM CET, Bruce Ashfield via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 3:22 PM Bruce Ashfield via
> lists.openembedded.org
> <bruce.ashfield=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>>
>> From: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As discussed in the weekly engineering call, I'm sending this as
>> single series even though it crossed boundaries of the repositories.
>>
>> I don't have access to meta-yocto-contrib yet, so I haven't pushed
>> the component parts to contrib branches yet, but will do that for
>> future pull requests.
>>
>> I'm using this as a first run through some things I've cooked up
>> to coordinate the patches across the repos. The formatting is my
>> own, so apologies if it isn't clear .. and we'll see if it all
>>
>> Now to the series for OE-core:
>>
>>  - We have stable updates to 6.12
>>  - A kern-tools fix
>>  - Updates to 6.17
>>  - Removal of 6.17
>>  - Introduction of 6.18
>>  - Bump to libc-headers to 6.18
>>
>> I've built and booted what I can locally, and I know that the
>> major architectures work, and are functional with respect to
>> core features.
>>
>> I have more libc-headers testing running against meta-oe and
>> muslc, so there may be some breakage there and I'll help deal
>> with that if it happens.
>>
>> The update and then removal of 6.17 is on purpose. In case any
>> one was using it, they should get the latest tested before it
>> starts to be removed.
>>
>> For meta-yocto:
>>
>>   - removal of any remaining 6.17 references
>>   - introduction of 6.18
>>
>> The meta-yocto default changes are obviously REALLY RFC/RFT
>> there will be issues, but I've provided them anyway to make it
>> clear that we are going to 6.18 as the new default for all the
>> variants.
>>
>> Once we get 6.18 fully green and the h/w references udpated,
>> I'll remove 6.12 and 6.16 from master. That isn't in this series
>> by design.
>
>
> FYI: my extended testing shows a warning in the virtualization
> fragments. It isn't serious, but will be fixed in incremental patches
> on the end of this queue.
>
> Bruce
>

Hi Bruce,

Sorry, I was a bit late in testing this.

On my side I also get some issues in building strace, are you aware of
this?

ERROR: strace-6.17-r0 do_compile: Execution of '/srv/pokybuild/yocto-worker/genericx86-64/build/build/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/strace/6.17/temp/run.do_compile.3198325' failed with exit code 1
...
| ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/listmount.c: In function 'print_mnt_id_req':
| ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/listmount.c:39:16: error: 'struct mnt_id_req' has no member named 'spare'
|    39 |         if (req.spare) {
|       |                ^
| In file included from ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/listmount.c:9:
| ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/print_fields.h:384:37: error: 'struct mnt_id_req' has no member named 'spare'
|   384 |                 PRINT_VAL_X((where_).field_);                           \
|       |                                     ^
| ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/defs.h:1910:17: note: in definition of macro 'zero_extend_signed_to_ull'
|  1910 |         (sizeof(v) == sizeof(char) ? (unsigned long long) (unsigned char) (v) : \
|       |                 ^
| ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/print_fields.h:384:17: note: in expansion of macro 'PRINT_VAL_X'
|   384 |                 PRINT_VAL_X((where_).field_);                           \
|       |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~
| ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/listmount.c:41:17: note: in expansion of macro 'PRINT_FIELD_X'
|    41 |                 PRINT_FIELD_X(req, spare);
|       |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
| ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/print_fields.h:384:37: error: 'struct mnt_id_req' has no member named 'spare'
|   384 |                 PRINT_VAL_X((where_).field_);                           \
|       |                                     ^
...

https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/4/builds/2904
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/19/builds/2895
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/22/builds/2922
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/60/builds/2891

Thanks,
Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Dubois-Briand, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/21] linux-yocto: combined and consolidated pull request

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 3:29 AM Mathieu Dubois-Briand
<mathieu.dubois-briand@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu Dec 18, 2025 at 9:56 PM CET, Bruce Ashfield via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 3:22 PM Bruce Ashfield via
> > lists.openembedded.org
> > <bruce.ashfield=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> As discussed in the weekly engineering call, I'm sending this as
> >> single series even though it crossed boundaries of the repositories.
> >>
> >> I don't have access to meta-yocto-contrib yet, so I haven't pushed
> >> the component parts to contrib branches yet, but will do that for
> >> future pull requests.
> >>
> >> I'm using this as a first run through some things I've cooked up
> >> to coordinate the patches across the repos. The formatting is my
> >> own, so apologies if it isn't clear .. and we'll see if it all
> >>
> >> Now to the series for OE-core:
> >>
> >>  - We have stable updates to 6.12
> >>  - A kern-tools fix
> >>  - Updates to 6.17
> >>  - Removal of 6.17
> >>  - Introduction of 6.18
> >>  - Bump to libc-headers to 6.18
> >>
> >> I've built and booted what I can locally, and I know that the
> >> major architectures work, and are functional with respect to
> >> core features.
> >>
> >> I have more libc-headers testing running against meta-oe and
> >> muslc, so there may be some breakage there and I'll help deal
> >> with that if it happens.
> >>
> >> The update and then removal of 6.17 is on purpose. In case any
> >> one was using it, they should get the latest tested before it
> >> starts to be removed.
> >>
> >> For meta-yocto:
> >>
> >>   - removal of any remaining 6.17 references
> >>   - introduction of 6.18
> >>
> >> The meta-yocto default changes are obviously REALLY RFC/RFT
> >> there will be issues, but I've provided them anyway to make it
> >> clear that we are going to 6.18 as the new default for all the
> >> variants.
> >>
> >> Once we get 6.18 fully green and the h/w references udpated,
> >> I'll remove 6.12 and 6.16 from master. That isn't in this series
> >> by design.
> >
> >
> > FYI: my extended testing shows a warning in the virtualization
> > fragments. It isn't serious, but will be fixed in incremental patches
> > on the end of this queue.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Sorry, I was a bit late in testing this.
>
> On my side I also get some issues in building strace, are you aware of
> this?
>
> ERROR: strace-6.17-r0 do_compile: Execution of '/srv/pokybuild/yocto-worker/genericx86-64/build/build/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/strace/6.17/temp/run.do_compile.3198325' failed with exit code 1
> ...
> | ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/listmount.c: In function 'print_mnt_id_req':
> | ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/listmount.c:39:16: error: 'struct mnt_id_req' has no member named 'spare'
> |    39 |         if (req.spare) {
> |       |                ^
> | In file included from ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/listmount.c:9:
> | ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/print_fields.h:384:37: error: 'struct mnt_id_req' has no member named 'spare'
> |   384 |                 PRINT_VAL_X((where_).field_);                           \
> |       |                                     ^
> | ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/defs.h:1910:17: note: in definition of macro 'zero_extend_signed_to_ull'
> |  1910 |         (sizeof(v) == sizeof(char) ? (unsigned long long) (unsigned char) (v) : \
> |       |                 ^
> | ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/print_fields.h:384:17: note: in expansion of macro 'PRINT_VAL_X'
> |   384 |                 PRINT_VAL_X((where_).field_);                           \
> |       |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~
> | ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/listmount.c:41:17: note: in expansion of macro 'PRINT_FIELD_X'
> |    41 |                 PRINT_FIELD_X(req, spare);
> |       |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> | ../../sources/strace-6.17/src/print_fields.h:384:37: error: 'struct mnt_id_req' has no member named 'spare'
> |   384 |                 PRINT_VAL_X((where_).field_);                           \
> |       |                                     ^
> ...

I didn't see that, but our strace in OEcore must be just a bit out of date.

I'm off for the next week, but if I have time during the evenings, I'll fix
this up. Otherwise, it will be top of my list when I return.

Bruce

>
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/4/builds/2904
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/19/builds/2895
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/22/builds/2922
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/60/builds/2891
>
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
> --
> Mathieu Dubois-Briand, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com
>


-- 
- Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end
- "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II

[PATCH 0/21] linux-yocto: combined and consolidated pull request

[bruce.ashfield]

From: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>

Hi all,

As discussed in the weekly engineering call, I'm sending this as
single series even though it crossed boundaries of the repositories.

I don't have access to meta-yocto-contrib yet, so I haven't pushed
the component parts to contrib branches yet, but will do that for
future pull requests.

I'm using this as a first run through some things I've cooked up
to coordinate the patches across the repos. The formatting is my
own, so apologies if it isn't clear .. and we'll see if it all 

Now to the series for OE-core:

 - We have stable updates to 6.12
 - A kern-tools fix
 - Updates to 6.17
 - Removal of 6.17
 - Introduction of 6.18
 - Bump to libc-headers to 6.18

I've built and booted what I can locally, and I know that the
major architectures work, and are functional with respect to
core features.

I have more libc-headers testing running against meta-oe and
muslc, so there may be some breakage there and I'll help deal
with that if it happens.

The update and then removal of 6.17 is on purpose. In case any
one was using it, they should get the latest tested before it
starts to be removed.

For meta-yocto:

  - removal of any remaining 6.17 references
  - introduction of 6.18

The meta-yocto default changes are obviously REALLY RFC/RFT
there will be issues, but I've provided them anyway to make it
clear that we are going to 6.18 as the new default for all the
variants.

Once we get 6.18 fully green and the h/w references udpated,
I'll remove 6.12 and 6.16 from master. That isn't in this series
by design.

Cheers,

Bruce

Aggregate summary of exported patches:

 - openembedded-core branch=master : 15 patches
 - meta-yocto branch=master : 6 patches

Changes:
  [01/15][openembedded-core] kern-tools: fix commit SHA reproducibility 
  [02/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.12: update to v6.12.61       
  [03/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.12: update CVE exclusions    
  [04/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.12: update to v6.12.62       
  [05/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.12: update CVE exclusions    
  [06/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.16: rust kernel configs      
  [07/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.17: update to v6.17.11       
  [08/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.17: update CVE exclusions    
  [09/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.17: rust kernel configs      
  [10/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.17: drop recipes             
  [11/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.18: introduce reference      
  [12/15][openembedded-core] linux-libc-headers: update to 6.18         
  [13/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.18: rust kernel configs      
  [14/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.18: update to v6.18.1        
  [15/15][openembedded-core] linux-yocto/6.18: update CVE exclusions    
  [01/06][meta-yocto] yocto-bsp: introduce 6.18 h/w reference           
  [02/06][meta-yocto] yocto-bsp/6.17: drop bbappend                     
  [03/06][meta-yocto] poky-tiny: make 6.18 preferred kernel version     
  [04/06][meta-yocto] poky: make 6.18 preferred kernel version          
  [05/06][meta-yocto] poky-alt: make default kernel 6.18                
  [06/06][meta-yocto] yocto-bsp: genericx86: bump default kernel to 6.18

---
Diffstat:
  openembedded-core:
    .../kern-tools/kern-tools-native_git.bb            |    2 +-
    ...-headers_6.17.bb => linux-libc-headers_6.18.bb} |    3 +-
    meta/recipes-kernel/linux/cve-exclusion_6.12.inc   |  632 +++++++++++-
    ...e-exclusion_6.17.inc => cve-exclusion_6.18.inc} | 1040 ++++++++++++++++----
    meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_6.12.bb   |    6 +-
    meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_6.16.bb   |    2 +-
    ...nux-yocto-rt_6.17.bb => linux-yocto-rt_6.18.bb} |   12 +-
    meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-tiny_6.12.bb |    6 +-
    meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-tiny_6.16.bb |    2 +-
    ...yocto-tiny_6.17.bb => linux-yocto-tiny_6.18.bb} |   12 +-
    meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.12.bb      |   28 +-
    meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.16.bb      |    4 +-
    .../{linux-yocto_6.17.bb => linux-yocto_6.18.bb}   |   52 +-
    13 files changed, 1526 insertions(+), 275 deletions(-)

  meta-yocto:
    meta-poky/conf/distro/include/poky-distro-alt-test-config.inc         | 2 +-
    meta-poky/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf                                  | 2 +-
    meta-poky/conf/distro/poky.conf                                       | 4 ++--
    meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/include/genericx86-common.inc             | 2 +-
    .../linux/{linux-yocto_6.17.bbappend => linux-yocto_6.18.bbappend}    | 4 ++--
    5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

-- 
2.39.2

Re: [PATCH 0/21] linux-yocto: combined and consolidated pull request

[Richard Purdie]

Hi Bruce,

On Thu, 2025-12-18 at 15:22 -0500, bruce.ashfield@gmail.com wrote:
> As discussed in the weekly engineering call, I'm sending this as
> single series even though it crossed boundaries of the repositories.
> 
> I don't have access to meta-yocto-contrib yet, so I haven't pushed
> the component parts to contrib branches yet, but will do that for
> future pull requests.
> 
> I'm using this as a first run through some things I've cooked up
> to coordinate the patches across the repos. The formatting is my
> own, so apologies if it isn't clear .. and we'll see if it all 
> 
> Now to the series for OE-core:
> 
>  - We have stable updates to 6.12
>  - A kern-tools fix
>  - Updates to 6.17
>  - Removal of 6.17
>  - Introduction of 6.18
>  - Bump to libc-headers to 6.18
> 
> I've built and booted what I can locally, and I know that the
> major architectures work, and are functional with respect to
> core features.
> 
> I have more libc-headers testing running against meta-oe and
> muslc, so there may be some breakage there and I'll help deal
> with that if it happens.
> 
> The update and then removal of 6.17 is on purpose. In case any
> one was using it, they should get the latest tested before it
> starts to be removed.
> 
> For meta-yocto:
> 
>   - removal of any remaining 6.17 references
>   - introduction of 6.18
> 
> The meta-yocto default changes are obviously REALLY RFC/RFT
> there will be issues, but I've provided them anyway to make it
> clear that we are going to 6.18 as the new default for all the
> variants.
> 
> Once we get 6.18 fully green and the h/w references udpated,
> I'll remove 6.12 and 6.16 from master. That isn't in this series
> by design.

I ran this through some testing and it isn't straight forward.

We need a newer strace with the newer kernel so I queued that patch
from Robert. That caused ptest failures so I disabled the failing bpf
strace ptests.

ltp failed to compile so I backported a patch to fix that.

We still have a cryptodev-module failure:
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/6/builds/2922
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/25/builds/2897
(all world builds I think)

and an initramfs module space problem:
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/22/builds/2931

The rest of the build is still ongoing.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 0/21] linux-yocto: combined and consolidated pull request

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 9:13 AM Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> On Thu, 2025-12-18 at 15:22 -0500, bruce.ashfield@gmail.com wrote:
> > As discussed in the weekly engineering call, I'm sending this as
> > single series even though it crossed boundaries of the repositories.
> >
> > I don't have access to meta-yocto-contrib yet, so I haven't pushed
> > the component parts to contrib branches yet, but will do that for
> > future pull requests.
> >
> > I'm using this as a first run through some things I've cooked up
> > to coordinate the patches across the repos. The formatting is my
> > own, so apologies if it isn't clear .. and we'll see if it all
> >
> > Now to the series for OE-core:
> >
> >  - We have stable updates to 6.12
> >  - A kern-tools fix
> >  - Updates to 6.17
> >  - Removal of 6.17
> >  - Introduction of 6.18
> >  - Bump to libc-headers to 6.18
> >
> > I've built and booted what I can locally, and I know that the
> > major architectures work, and are functional with respect to
> > core features.
> >
> > I have more libc-headers testing running against meta-oe and
> > muslc, so there may be some breakage there and I'll help deal
> > with that if it happens.
> >
> > The update and then removal of 6.17 is on purpose. In case any
> > one was using it, they should get the latest tested before it
> > starts to be removed.
> >
> > For meta-yocto:
> >
> >   - removal of any remaining 6.17 references
> >   - introduction of 6.18
> >
> > The meta-yocto default changes are obviously REALLY RFC/RFT
> > there will be issues, but I've provided them anyway to make it
> > clear that we are going to 6.18 as the new default for all the
> > variants.
> >
> > Once we get 6.18 fully green and the h/w references udpated,
> > I'll remove 6.12 and 6.16 from master. That isn't in this series
> > by design.
>
> I ran this through some testing and it isn't straight forward.
>

Back online after a 10 hour drive!

> We need a newer strace with the newer kernel so I queued that patch
> from Robert. That caused ptest failures so I disabled the failing bpf
> strace ptests.

ok. I'll ignore strace and assume that bump will handle it.

>
> ltp failed to compile so I backported a patch to fix that.
>

ack'd

> We still have a cryptodev-module failure:
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/6/builds/2922
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/25/builds/2897
> (all world builds I think)

I can handle this one, it'll be.a day or so, but I also haven't checked
the  autoupdate list yet to see if this is in it. I'll check the lists before
I start and see if anyone else has an update in flight.

>
> and an initramfs module space problem:
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/22/builds/2931

And a config warning (easy for me to fix).'

For the space. Is it only genericarm64 that we do this test on ?  It
could either e normal kernel size increases, or it could be all the work
that has been done in genericarm64's config that has causes this.

If it is normal kernel, then I can have a look for something obvious,
and then we can increase the size. If it is only genericarm64, then
we should get Mikko's opinion on what might be options we could
tweak to reduce the size.

Bruce


>
> The rest of the build is still ongoing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>


--
- Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end
- "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/21] linux-yocto: combined and consolidated pull request

[Mikko Rapeli]

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 10:34:14PM -0500, Bruce Ashfield via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 9:13 AM Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > On Thu, 2025-12-18 at 15:22 -0500, bruce.ashfield@gmail.com wrote:
> > > As discussed in the weekly engineering call, I'm sending this as
> > > single series even though it crossed boundaries of the repositories.
> > >
> > > I don't have access to meta-yocto-contrib yet, so I haven't pushed
> > > the component parts to contrib branches yet, but will do that for
> > > future pull requests.
> > >
> > > I'm using this as a first run through some things I've cooked up
> > > to coordinate the patches across the repos. The formatting is my
> > > own, so apologies if it isn't clear .. and we'll see if it all
> > >
> > > Now to the series for OE-core:
> > >
> > >  - We have stable updates to 6.12
> > >  - A kern-tools fix
> > >  - Updates to 6.17
> > >  - Removal of 6.17
> > >  - Introduction of 6.18
> > >  - Bump to libc-headers to 6.18
> > >
> > > I've built and booted what I can locally, and I know that the
> > > major architectures work, and are functional with respect to
> > > core features.
> > >
> > > I have more libc-headers testing running against meta-oe and
> > > muslc, so there may be some breakage there and I'll help deal
> > > with that if it happens.
> > >
> > > The update and then removal of 6.17 is on purpose. In case any
> > > one was using it, they should get the latest tested before it
> > > starts to be removed.
> > >
> > > For meta-yocto:
> > >
> > >   - removal of any remaining 6.17 references
> > >   - introduction of 6.18
> > >
> > > The meta-yocto default changes are obviously REALLY RFC/RFT
> > > there will be issues, but I've provided them anyway to make it
> > > clear that we are going to 6.18 as the new default for all the
> > > variants.
> > >
> > > Once we get 6.18 fully green and the h/w references udpated,
> > > I'll remove 6.12 and 6.16 from master. That isn't in this series
> > > by design.
> >
> > I ran this through some testing and it isn't straight forward.
> >
> 
> Back online after a 10 hour drive!
> 
> > We need a newer strace with the newer kernel so I queued that patch
> > from Robert. That caused ptest failures so I disabled the failing bpf
> > strace ptests.
> 
> ok. I'll ignore strace and assume that bump will handle it.
> 
> >
> > ltp failed to compile so I backported a patch to fix that.
> >
> 
> ack'd
> 
> > We still have a cryptodev-module failure:
> > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/6/builds/2922
> > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/25/builds/2897
> > (all world builds I think)
> 
> I can handle this one, it'll be.a day or so, but I also haven't checked
> the  autoupdate list yet to see if this is in it. I'll check the lists before
> I start and see if anyone else has an update in flight.
> 
> >
> > and an initramfs module space problem:
> > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/22/builds/2931
> 
> And a config warning (easy for me to fix).'
> 
> For the space. Is it only genericarm64 that we do this test on ?  It
> could either e normal kernel size increases, or it could be all the work
> that has been done in genericarm64's config that has causes this.
> 
> If it is normal kernel, then I can have a look for something obvious,
> and then we can increase the size. If it is only genericarm64, then
> we should get Mikko's opinion on what might be options we could
> tweak to reduce the size.

This is normal. More drivers as modules, dependencies to firmware and slight
increase in kernel size hitting the limit again. I think increasing the limit
is the way to go now. I've been hitting this limit locally with 6.17 kernel too
after some more arm64 drivers are enabled.

Cheers,

-Mikko

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/21] linux-yocto: combined and consolidated pull request

[Mikko Rapeli]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 09:31:06AM +0200, Mikko Rapeli via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 10:34:14PM -0500, Bruce Ashfield via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 9:13 AM Richard Purdie
> > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Bruce,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2025-12-18 at 15:22 -0500, bruce.ashfield@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > As discussed in the weekly engineering call, I'm sending this as
> > > > single series even though it crossed boundaries of the repositories.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have access to meta-yocto-contrib yet, so I haven't pushed
> > > > the component parts to contrib branches yet, but will do that for
> > > > future pull requests.
> > > >
> > > > I'm using this as a first run through some things I've cooked up
> > > > to coordinate the patches across the repos. The formatting is my
> > > > own, so apologies if it isn't clear .. and we'll see if it all
> > > >
> > > > Now to the series for OE-core:
> > > >
> > > >  - We have stable updates to 6.12
> > > >  - A kern-tools fix
> > > >  - Updates to 6.17
> > > >  - Removal of 6.17
> > > >  - Introduction of 6.18
> > > >  - Bump to libc-headers to 6.18
> > > >
> > > > I've built and booted what I can locally, and I know that the
> > > > major architectures work, and are functional with respect to
> > > > core features.
> > > >
> > > > I have more libc-headers testing running against meta-oe and
> > > > muslc, so there may be some breakage there and I'll help deal
> > > > with that if it happens.
> > > >
> > > > The update and then removal of 6.17 is on purpose. In case any
> > > > one was using it, they should get the latest tested before it
> > > > starts to be removed.
> > > >
> > > > For meta-yocto:
> > > >
> > > >   - removal of any remaining 6.17 references
> > > >   - introduction of 6.18
> > > >
> > > > The meta-yocto default changes are obviously REALLY RFC/RFT
> > > > there will be issues, but I've provided them anyway to make it
> > > > clear that we are going to 6.18 as the new default for all the
> > > > variants.
> > > >
> > > > Once we get 6.18 fully green and the h/w references udpated,
> > > > I'll remove 6.12 and 6.16 from master. That isn't in this series
> > > > by design.
> > >
> > > I ran this through some testing and it isn't straight forward.
> > >
> > 
> > Back online after a 10 hour drive!
> > 
> > > We need a newer strace with the newer kernel so I queued that patch
> > > from Robert. That caused ptest failures so I disabled the failing bpf
> > > strace ptests.
> > 
> > ok. I'll ignore strace and assume that bump will handle it.
> > 
> > >
> > > ltp failed to compile so I backported a patch to fix that.
> > >
> > 
> > ack'd
> > 
> > > We still have a cryptodev-module failure:
> > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/6/builds/2922
> > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/25/builds/2897
> > > (all world builds I think)
> > 
> > I can handle this one, it'll be.a day or so, but I also haven't checked
> > the  autoupdate list yet to see if this is in it. I'll check the lists before
> > I start and see if anyone else has an update in flight.
> > 
> > >
> > > and an initramfs module space problem:
> > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/22/builds/2931
> > 
> > And a config warning (easy for me to fix).'
> > 
> > For the space. Is it only genericarm64 that we do this test on ?  It
> > could either e normal kernel size increases, or it could be all the work
> > that has been done in genericarm64's config that has causes this.
> > 
> > If it is normal kernel, then I can have a look for something obvious,
> > and then we can increase the size. If it is only genericarm64, then
> > we should get Mikko's opinion on what might be options we could
> > tweak to reduce the size.
> 
> This is normal. More drivers as modules, dependencies to firmware and slight
> increase in kernel size hitting the limit again. I think increasing the limit
> is the way to go now. I've been hitting this limit locally with 6.17 kernel too
> after some more arm64 drivers are enabled.

I see Richard added a patch in meta-yocto master-next to update genericarm64
INITRAMFS_MAXSIZE to 280 Mb. This is fine for me.

A lot of the kernel drivers and firmware blobs are strictly not needed in initramfs
to mount the rootfs, but we can't separate them at the moment without full manual
control of the initramfs package contents.

Cheers,

-Mikko