
Linux 4.19 - arto
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/22/184
======
rwmj
The first version which boots on RISC-V hardware (and QEMU) out of the box.
Previous versions needed out of tree patches[1] for essential IRQ and device
driver support. Excellent work by many people getting these upstream.

[1] [https://github.com/riscv/riscv-linux](https://github.com/riscv/riscv-
linux)

~~~
rwmj
I'm afraid to say there's a small correction after I went to the RISC-V BoF
tonight[1]. This kernel only boots on QEMU (which I had tested), but still
requires a small number of driver patches to boot on the HiFive Unleashed
board - I did not get around to testing this because our boards are all
consumed building Fedora and it's not very convenient to reboot them. They are
expecting these extra drivers will be upstream in 4.20.

[1] [https://osseu18.sched.com/event/Fwx7/bof-risc-v-sw-
ecosystem...](https://osseu18.sched.com/event/Fwx7/bof-risc-v-sw-ecosystem-
status-and-needs-atish-patra-western-digital-olof-johansson-palmer-dabbelt-
paul-walmsley-risc-v)

------
pjf
See summary at
[https://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_4.19](https://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_4.19)

~~~
codetrotter
From the page:

> Add EROFS (Enhanced Read-Only File System), a lightweight read-only file
> system with modern designs for scenarios which need high-performance read-
> only requirements, eg. firmwares in mobile phone or LIVECDs

and

> It is a experimental project, under the staging directory, and still expects
> to make changes to the on-disk layout.

I see it's included in the 4.19 branch of the Raspberry Pi fork of the kernel
as well.

[https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux/tree/rpi-4.19.y/drivers...](https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux/tree/rpi-4.19.y/drivers/staging/erofs)

There is no public, open source mkfs utility/integration for it yet far as I
can tell, but it seems from the original public announcement of EROFS on LKML
that it will be released eventually.

> the open source of erofs-mkfs is _still_ in progress, it will be released as
> soon as the internal process ends.

[https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/31/306](https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/31/306)

~~~
davemp
That's really nice. I remember having to use Read-Only on a few Raspberry Pi
projects because they have a tendency to corrupt SD cards. Getting a free
storage performance boost would really improve usability for my past use
cases.

~~~
Fnoord
I recommend only writing when it is necessary, so e.g. you might want to log
to /dev/null or tmpfs (I chose the latter but it adds up in RAM). Also,
disable swap if at all feasible.

On top of that I recommend industrial grade SD cards using (a)MLC. They might
be a bit more expensive but it is worth the stability.

I learned this from these posts (among others in the same thread 'Raspberry Pi
microSD card performance comparison') [1] [2]

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16776344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16776344)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16777238](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16777238)

~~~
davemp
Thanks for the links, they were good reads.

Coincidentally, for those projects I did end up mounting to a tmpfs, syncing
configs from a server, and writing them to a SPI flash chip with FEC. Fun to
know that others suggest the same!

I was just thinking along the lines of performance improvement for the
absolute garbage SD card speeds. I just remember how flipping long it would
take to load a program off those things.

------
stevewillows
Although it doesn't specifically mention it, this kernel supports Apple's
Magic Trackpad 2, which is a real blessing.

Original source: [https://github.com/robotrovsky/Linux-Magic-
Trackpad-2-Driver](https://github.com/robotrovsky/Linux-Magic-
Trackpad-2-Driver)

I've been using this since last night, and with some tweaking, it works really
well.

~~~
Fnoord
With haptic feedback support? That's amazing, I just bought one of these (as
it is the best trackpad available by a long shot). Even Windows doesn't
support this. I did find this one [1], but it doesn't seem to be signed so a
shady source.

[1] [http://extramagic.forbootcamp.org/](http://extramagic.forbootcamp.org/)

~~~
stevewillows
Not sure about haptic feedback yet.

For Windows, try [https://github.com/imbushuo/mac-precision-
touchpad/releases](https://github.com/imbushuo/mac-precision-
touchpad/releases)

I went through a lot of sketchy drivers like that one you mentioned, but this
one worked the best without any helper apps to mess around with.

Its a shame its taken so long for other OSs to support such a great device.

~~~
Fnoord
Thanks for the link. I did search quite a bit, but I did not find that one.

I noticed a few things from the link: the Apple Magic Trackpad 2 support is
"not stable", and it does not appear to be usable via Bluetooth.

~~~
stevewillows
With Linux, the latest kernel will allow for bluetooth connectivity. If you
search for `Linux Magic Trackpad 2` you'll see some of the discussions.

It takes a bit of messing around, but once you get it, it'll stay working
nicely.

One issue I had with Linux, which is probably an easy fix, is that Powertop
wanted to sleep the trackpad after 10s of non-use.

With Windows, I tried to get the bluetooth working on a non-bootcamp install
and couldn't get it going. I don't doubt that they'll sort it out. A few
versions of W10 ago some were using the bootcamp drivers with moderate
success.

------
jedberg
I've read a few things about the latest happenings with regards to Linus and
the kernel, but I feel like I'm missing something here. Can someone summarize
for me, or point me at a good summary?

Edit: Who is Greg KH and why is this significant and what is the relationship
between Greg KH and Linus (and the community)?

~~~
vatueil
Regarding Linus, he spoke to the BBC and explained in his own words his
position:
[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45664640](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45664640)

This ZDNet article summarizes some of the points Linus made, if you want the
short version: [https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-
answers-5-quest...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-
answers-5-questions-in-bbc-letter/)

~~~
0xfeeddeadbeef
Haha, I found a possible Freudian slip in the article: "Code of Conflict
(CoC)". Yes, it says "Conflict", which is unintentionally true, as it indeed
caused more conflict than not. [1]

[1] Archived:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20181011105751/https://www.bbc.c...](https://web.archive.org/web/20181011105751/https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45664640)

~~~
thrower123
The Code of Conflict is a real thing, predating the current mess

[https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/2015/03/on-the-linux-
ke...](https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/2015/03/on-the-linux-kernels-code-
of-conflict/)

------
ChrisSD
I think all this handwringing over the CoC would have more weight for me if:

a) It came from major Linux contributors.

b) It didn't assume a conspiracy to not only oust Linus but also get him to
dance to their tune.

~~~
forgottenpass
You're using a line of argument that I see quite often in day to day stuff
(outside the kernel) so I have to push back on this.

>would have more weight for me if [...] It came from major Linux contributors.

The group of people you would give the most weight to the opinion of are also
the group under the most pressured not to voice dissent publicly.

It isn't wrong to look to them or give large weight to their positions. The
error is in assuming that we can know their position beyond their choice not
to rock the boat. It might be very easy (they're in full agreement) or very
tricky (blood boiling, but "not their hill to die on").

All we know is that they do not dissent to the level that they are willing to
risk their involvement in the project at hand, or have a damaged reputation
when they try to participate in another.

~~~
ChrisSD
Perhaps. But usually if their blood is boiling they will leak indirectly as
anonymous sources, via unnamed "friends", or whatever other euphemism the
press likes to use.

------
jf-
I’m seeing a lot of people stating that they’re worried about this code of
conduct. Since I’ve not read it or any commentary about it, can someone tell
me why it’s so worrying? Is there a sincere fear that Linux will be damaged as
a result? If so, how?

~~~
orivej
Here is a good starting point to research the critique of this document:
[https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#note-6](https://bugs.ruby-
lang.org/issues/12004#note-6) . Its point is particularly apt:

> Given a choice between only two extremes, I'd far rather have Linus Torvalds
> telling me I'm an idiot and my code is shit, then exist in an offense taking
> culture where various forms of criticism are re-branded as "harassment."

However, the Linux copy has cut one of the more malicious paragraphs:
[https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c1d1ba844f01e747aa0272a4ee5c886024cd90eb)

~~~
0xfeeddeadbeef
I would like to extend this point: "I'd rather have Linus Torvalds telling me
I'm an idiot and my code is shit, than ... releasing kernel with my shitty
code and EVERYONE thinking that I'm an idiot".

~~~
elcomet
But this is a false dichotomy.

They could just refuse your code without calling you an idiot.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Of course there exist examples of Linus calling or even implying that
individual people / organisations are "idiots" and they are wrong (and he has
acknowledged this). But in the vast majority of cases the criticism is aimed
at the code itself and I genuinely don't see the issue with this.

~~~
elcomet
Neither do I

------
hu3
The guy managed to write more about himself than the patch. Is this the new
format? I thought I was reading a Medium blog post.

~~~
Maakuth
It's the first time that he's the one to sign off the release rather than
Linus, so it's appropriate to explain a bit.

------
metildaa
Linus may have been sincere in his writing, people saw him as this verbally
abusive boogeyman who would tear people apart, which led him to become that
type of person more and more.

The embrace and extend going on over in Redmond right now is threatening
though, what better time to use your clout and power over a competitors org
(that your a member of now) than when you have forked what depended on their
software, extended it to work on your platform, and now want to take the wind
out of their sails.

The recent reaction from Valve is telling, I think Gabe is fearful about the
current state of affairs. We really don't know all the pieces of this puzzle
though, so best to watch our backs. Avoid vendor lock-in, its the devil.

~~~
remar
Can you provide more context re: "The recent reaction from Valve is telling, I
think Gabe is fearful about the current state of affairs" ?

~~~
quantummkv
I think it's a reference to steam proton, a compatibility layer they built to
run windows games on linux.

------
binaryapparatus
Related:
[https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/22/188](https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/22/188)
Can't agree more.

------
seanhunter
Having someone else manage merges into the stable kernel branch isn't new. In
the old kernel dev model (circa 2.x kernels) after the first few patches in a
new stable kernel, Linus always used to delegate stable maintenance to someone
else (Alan Cox) so he had more time to work on the experimental branch. So
Alan would maintain 2.0 and Linus 2.1 for example.

------
shmerl
Some important fixes in amdgpu for Vega there. It's finally waking up from
sleep properly when using DisplayPort.

~~~
Corrado
This was my biggest issue with 4.17 & 4.18. I just recently upgraded my system
to a Ryzen 2400 and I have had quite a few issues. Keeping up with the latest
kernel builds with ukuu has helped but it would be nice to have a stable
kernel that works with my CPU/GPU. Hopefully, 4.19 will make it to stable
tonight and I can upgrade tomorrow. :)

~~~
shmerl
I have Vega 56 and was bugged by it in 4.17/4.18 cycle. Finally 4.19-rc fixed
it. But there are a few DisplayPort 1.2 related annoyances that still remain.

------
mesutpiskin
OpenCV 3.4.2 not capturing Picam on Raspberry Pi 3.

------
intsunny
I think the code of conduct stuff worked out well in the end, especially as
cooler heads prevailed.

In the `code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst` document they write:

``` The initial Code of Conduct Committee consists of volunteer members of the
TAB, as well as a professional mediator acting as a neutral third party. The
first task of the committee is to establish documented processes, which will
be made public. ```

``` Any decisions by the committee will be brought to the TAB, for
implementation of enforcement with the relevant maintainers if needed. A
decision by the Code of Conduct Committee can be overturned by the TAB by a
two-thirds vote. ```

Ultimately this tempers the worries of many about the C-o-C resulting in a
tool used by those with politically charged agendas.

~~~
valvar
Is it a worry, rather than simply being crass, when the author of the CoC
herself has said that it is indeed a political document[1]?

[1]
[https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041465346656530432](https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041465346656530432)

~~~
metildaa
The CoC being a political document is expected, it is laying the boundaries
that define acceptable behavior, an inherently political task.

On that ssamw tangent, the GPL series of license is inherently political. I
personally like the political ideology espoused, but some do not despite how
other licenses leave these developers with many users and proprietary forks,
buf no added code, docs or community.

~~~
m1el
> The CoC being a political document is expected

I agree that both CoC and GPL are political.

Developers need to understand something: CoC a political document written by
someone opposing one of important principles of free software, meritocracy.
[https://postmeritocracy.org/](https://postmeritocracy.org/)

Now here's a big difference: linux was developed under GPL from the very
beginning. If you didn't like the politics behind GPL, you didn't contribute.
Now, there are people who try to push their politics everywhere, because
"everything is political", even math. Why should you accept their politics?
Why should linux change its politics? Why must CoC be accepted? Why should
developers accept the politics of CoC, after making contributions under
promises of GPL?

~~~
specialist
I'm a huge fan of CoC's.

It allows us to codify the spirit of the law, to be used as a fall-back plan
when the letter of the law is being gamed. CoC's allow judgement, in contrast
to zero tolerance policies which prohibit judgement.

One of orgs I volunteer for had our own #metoo drama. Actual rape, assaults,
harassment, etc. Some stomach turning stuff. It made the news. There have been
some out of court settlements.

Per the bylaws, we didn't have any way to remove the perpetrator. Adopting a
CoC allowed the org membership to impeach the leader. (Maybe like a vote of no
confidence works in parliamentary systems.)

Concerns about CoC's being weaponized, misused, abused... Whatever. Of course
there's always oversteer, friendly fire. As if abuse didn't exist before
CoC's.

I happily accept those occasional failures and let the balance be figured out
over time. Rather than going back to denial and inaction.

In other words, I choose 98% awesome over 100% terrible, and happily work to
further reduce that 2% gap.

~~~
warmwaffles
> In other words, I choose 98% awesome over 100% terrible, and happily work to
> further reduce that 2% gap.

Made up percentages but I understand what you are trying to convey.

------
codeaken
I feel really worried about the Kernel project now that they have let Identity
Politics breach their walls. These kind of things have a tendency to split a
community rather than unite it.

The kernel project is surely one of the most successful software projects
ever. Having survived for 20 years, why change a winning formula?

I have always considered Linus un-political and more interested in getting
sh*t done and getting it right above anything else, so why he would sign-off
on this is a mystery to me.

~~~
werid
The community was already split. Those who tolerated his behaviour and those
who didn't.

~~~
codeaken
I don't think it was, at least not that black and white. If the community
really was that split the project would not have survived for 20 years. Surely
we would have seen a fork where the involved factions split off.

I think this is a very vocal minority in play here. From my understanding
these changes did not come from any of the core contributors but rather from
activists. The used divide and rule; if you don't sign off on our political
documents you are with "them" and we will let everyone know what a horrible
human being you are.

~~~
werid
I said nothing of how big the split was.

It seems the loud voices about how bad the CoC is aren't actually kernel
devs...

But there is atleast one known kernel dev who spoke up about Linus' behaviour,
and eventually just quit developing for the kernel.

edit: not to mention those who don't want to touch the kernel because of his
behaviour. one guy said the only contributions he makes to the kernel are for
his employer. if it wasn't for that, he'd not touch it.

~~~
ageofwant
So out of ~6k developers you only know of two malcontents? I don't think that
is what 'split' means.

------
binaryapparatus
It is very disturbing for me to see Greg KH being at the top and deciding what
goes into Linux. There is history of agenda that doesn't align best with
kernel user interests. Can't forget d-bus events very related to this person.
I did switch to FreeBSD couple of years ago but I love linux and it is not
easiest to observe all the latest events.

~~~
cesarb
Greg KH already decides what goes into the "stable" Linux series (4.y.z, for
instance 4.18.15), which is what most people actually use. Besides, he assumed
after the 4.19 merge window, and he's handed the 4.20 merge window back to
Linus; it's in the merge window that new features come in (after the merge
window closes it's mostly only bugfixes), so it's still Linus who gets to
decide.

~~~
binaryapparatus
Is stable different from latest? I am not sure how much independent decision
space he has, otherwise we would have d-bus in stable long time ago. Maybe I
don't know the process well enough but I would be surprised that Greg can
merge something that isn't approved in latest.

Fingers crossed it is only 4.19, I am kind of seeing this as a bigger event
but I may be wrong.

~~~
ufo
Parent poster was referring to the "LTS" kernels:
[https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html](https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html)

A good number of Linux distributions are based on an LTS release instead of a
mainline release.

~~~
binaryapparatus
Yes, I am aware of that but are LTS kernels in any for different from the
mainline kernel? Can LTS kernel contain code that is not approved and tested
in mainline first? They are 'older' but they contain same feature set that is
already approved by Linus, right?

