Originally posted by Sonadow
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
64-bit ARM Linux Kernel Against CPU-Specific Optimizations: "Pretty Unmaintainable"
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 2
-
Originally posted by Weasel View PostWell that makes more sense, but they can't do that on Linux, because it doesn't have a stable kernel ABI.
It's not about being monolithic or not. It could very well be monolithic (modules loaded in same address space, as libraries) and have a stable ABI if they wished.
I actually prefer monolithic because it has more performance, but I'm not a fan of unstable ABI at all.
Hell, even macOS's kernel maintains some degree of a stable ABI. It's common to see binary drivers in macOS survive at least one major macOS upgrade. Some drivers even can survive two or more major macOS upgrades.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Weasel View Post
Windows is a fucking joke but that's for completely other reasons. That platform (API) is good though.
And you are right, its API is really good. They are fucking complex, but hell just about every API, framework and toolkit Microsoft puts out for Windows is extremely comprehensive. The downside is that it's so complex it's extremely intimidating to even find a starting point to play with.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sonadow View PostWhat? That's a good thing.
ARM is already such a royal mess where mainline kernels cannot be used with almost every ARM system to date, and you want them to pull in more SoC variant-specific patches?
Can you imagine what will happen if, for example, board vendors like Asus, MSI etc license Intel/AMD processors, make changes to them, and then submit patches for every single change they make to the processors back to the kernel?
Actually, just imagine what will happen if all of them submitted requests to Microsoft to include their vendor-specific x64 optimisations and customisations into the Windows kernel. Microsoft will probably just tell them to go pound sand.
On the other hand, if the vendors compiled these as driver DLLs and requested Microsoft to include them with Windows, Microsoft will probably be more accommodating.
It's not about being monolithic or not. It could very well be monolithic (modules loaded in same address space, as libraries) and have a stable ABI if they wished.
I actually prefer monolithic because it has more performance, but I'm not a fan of unstable ABI at all.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Volta View PostWhere's Windows ARM support (at comparable level to Linux)?
I was talking in general, not Linux kernel specifically; this is just one example. They are always obsessed with simplicity and "maintainability" and basically lazy to have it in, holding progress back even for contributors who contribute the god damn optimizations and code. How does losing 40% performance feel like to you because of some asshat maintainer who "doesn't find it useful" (as if he's the one using it!!! the nerve!!!)
So spare me the typical classic bullshit "where's your patch then?" talk, anyone who ever said that proves how little experience he has contributing anything to some open source where those clowns will simply ignore or reject it. Or that they're not even programmers in the first place.
Windows is a fucking joke but that's for completely other reasons. That platform (API) is good though.
BTW: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-...-UMS-DRM-Infra
Open source maintainers are great, eh?Last edited by Weasel; 23 November 2023, 09:08 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
Come back and tell us that after connecting a QLogic QLGE card. Or 98% of the world's Android phones that use RNDIS for tethering.
You are a mentally challenged clown.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
Anyone arguing in good faith would be smart enough to recognize that what Volta said was shorthand for "Open source developers are still supporting hardware that closed-source vendors dropped support for years ago" and/or "Open source developers are still maintaining competitors to software products that closed-source vendors dropped support for years ago" and address the actual point, rather than making a fool of themselves thinking they've scored a win by attacking a strawman they constructed by intentionally reading an unintended meaning from a bit of lazy grammar.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Weasel View PostAre we talking about old hardware here?
No.
Stop making it so easy proving to the world how much of a joke you are. It's no challenge.
Linux support for ARM devices:- Acorn Archimedes and RiscPC series (original machines were supported in 2.6.22)
- Allwinner
- Apple M series processors
- Broadcom VideoCore
- DEC StrongARM
- Samsung Exynos
- Marvell (formerly Intel) XScale
- Sharp Zaurus
- HiSilicon
- iPAQ
- Palm, Inc.'s Tungsten Handheld
- Gamepark Holdings' GP2X
- Open Pandora
- MediaTek
- Nokia 770 Internet Tablet
- Nokia N800
- Nokia N810
- Nokia N900
- Nomadik
- NovaThor
- gumstix
- Sony Mylo
- Qualcomm Snapdragon
- Nvidia Tegra
- TI OMAP
- Psion 5, 5MX, Series 7, netBook
- Rockchip
- Some Models of Apple iPods (see iPodLinux)
- OpenMoko Neo 1973, Neo FreeRunner
- Freescale's (formerly Motorola's) i.MX multimedia processors
- Qualcomm Snapdragon
Last edited by Volta; 23 November 2023, 06:41 AM.
- Likes 4
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mlau View Post
Once the first patch of this kind is accepted, there will be hundreds of patches from people with their specific magic performance formula for their super niche kernel. Just look at whats available on github; I would not want to maintain that insane mess of different config options either. And also not deal with the bugreports caused by these.
I do understand the kernel maintainers position very well.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: