| Message ID | cover.1766087617.bruce.ashfield@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-yocto: combined and consolidated pull request | expand |
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
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
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
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
On Mon, 2025-12-22 at 22:34 -0500, Bruce Ashfield 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. I'd tried the srcrev change on master next and it worked. I've taked your patch, thanks! > > 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. I don't want to break things too badly given it is the holidays but I do want to keep patches moving. I've therefore taken most of your series except the bits making the default 6.18. This gets us on the new point releases, bumps the CVE info, drops 6.17 and adds 6.18 for testing along with switching to the 6.18 headers. I included the cryptodev-module tweak, the ltp fix, the strace fixes and a tweak to increase the initramfs size by 20MB. The initramfs issue is genericarm64 specific and Mikko was in favour of increasing the initramfs size. I am a bit worried about the size issues there but that is a bigger issue to think about at a different time. This does leave genericarm64 kernel config warnings: https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/60/builds/2902 https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/22/builds/2933 meta-arm failures: https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/75/builds/2786 meta-virt failures: https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/89/builds/2761 as the issues we need to resolve before we change the default to 6.18. Hopefully a sensible compromise for the holidays! :) Cheers, Richard
On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 8:45 AM Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 2025-12-22 at 22:34 -0500, Bruce Ashfield 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. > > I'd tried the srcrev change on master next and it worked. I've taked > your patch, thanks! > > > > 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. > > I don't want to break things too badly given it is the holidays but I > do want to keep patches moving. I've therefore taken most of your > series except the bits making the default 6.18. > > This gets us on the new point releases, bumps the CVE info, drops 6.17 > and adds 6.18 for testing along with switching to the 6.18 headers. > > I included the cryptodev-module tweak, the ltp fix, the strace fixes > and a tweak to increase the initramfs size by 20MB. > Sounds good. > The initramfs issue is genericarm64 specific and Mikko was in favour of > increasing the initramfs size. I am a bit worried about the size issues > there but that is a bigger issue to think about at a different time. > > This does leave genericarm64 kernel config warnings: > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/60/builds/2902 > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/22/builds/2933 I see the patch for this from Mikko > > meta-arm failures: > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/75/builds/2786 > > meta-virt failures: > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/89/builds/2761 And I've fixed this on master-next of meta-virt while I was doing 6.18, I just haven't had enough time to finish testing there. It'll be pushed at some point before Jan 1st, so no concerns there. Bruce > > as the issues we need to resolve before we change the default to 6.18. > Hopefully a sensible compromise for the holidays! :) > > 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
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(-)