Slashdot Mirror
Linux 3.1 Released With Support for the OpenRISC CPU
diegocg writes "Linux 3.1 has been released. The changes include support for the OpenRISC opensource CPU; performance improvements to the writeback throttling; some speedups in the slab allocator; a new iSCSI implementation; support for NFC chips; bad block management in the generic software RAID layer; a new 'cpupowerutils' utility for power management; filesystem barriers enabled by default in Ext3; Wii Controller support; and [the usual] new drivers and many small improvements."
Where can I get an OpenRISC CPU and a motherboard that will support it, and how much do they cost compared to Intel/AMD CPUs of similar performance?
Now they just need to fix support for Intel Sandy Bridge processors...
Don't feel too bad, from what I remember Linus just randomly decided that a minor number of the 2.6 series was now 3.0 a few months back.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Against other open cores such as the SPARC cores?
Yes, because it's so much better to spend years adding tons of features but only ever incrementing the bugfix number. Incrementing the minor number every kernel release (approximately every six weeks or so) means we won't hit 4.0 (assuming 3.9 --> 4.0) until sometime near the end of 2012.
I for one am holding out for 3.11. I heard it will be for Workgroups!
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
2.6.39 --> 3.0 instead of 2.6.40
Can opensource projects stop with this utterly terrible use of the major.minor numbering...
You're right. The sky is in fact falling.
Can't wait for Linux 3.11 for Workgroups
Linus got sick of 2.6.really_big_number
In January 2012 they will release Linux 3.11
In March they will release Linux 95
In May they will release Linux 98
In July they will release Linux Me
In September they will release Linux XP
In November they will release Linux Vista
In January 2013 they will release Linux 7....
and then it will be the year of Linux on the Desktop!
If that's your criticism of open source, I'd say things are going fine.
"So what are the big changes?
"NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Sure, we have the usual two thirds driver changes, and a lot of random fixes, but the point is that 3.0 is just about renumbering, we are very much not doing a KDE-4 or a Gnome-3 here. No breakage, no special scary new features, nothing at all like that. We've been doing time-based releases for many years now, this is in no way about features. If you want an excuse for the renumbering, you really should look at the time-based one ('20 years') instead.
tl;dr - Nothing happened.
The model of incrementing the versions had long been incompatible (as far as getting reasonable numbers) with the changed development model. Since the development was now more like a steady stream of whatever features that happened to be developed instead of the old one where bunches of big features were released at once and less often, the mere silliness of a .39 release (as 2.6 had in practice become the "major" version (as opposed to major being 2 and minor being 6) with the aforementioned shift) and there being no technical route to justify incrementing the major version (whether one considers that being 2 or 2.6) as there was not coming any major features at any point, but steadily, whenever, the reason might as well be said to be "for the hell of it" or "because" or "because I can and wanna".
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
From the Changelog linked to in the article...
1.3. Filesystem barriers enabled by default in Ext3
Hard disks have a memory buffer were they temporally store the instructions and data issued from the OS while the disk processes it. The internal software of modern disks changes the order of the instructions to improve performance, which means that instructions may or may not be committed to the disk in the same order the OS issued them. This breaks many of the assumptions that filesystems need to reliably implement things like journaling or COW, so disks provide a "cache flush" instruction that the OS uses when it needs it. In the Linux world, when a filesystem issues that instruction, it is called a "barrier". Filesystems such as XFS, Btrfs and Ext4 already use and enable barriers by default; Ext3 supports them but until this release it did not enable them by default: while the data safety guarantees are higher, their performance impact in Ext3 is noticeable in many common workloads, and it considered that it was an unnaceptable performance regression to enable them by default. However, Linux distros like Red Hat have enabled barriers by default in Ext3 for a long time, and now the default for mainline has been changed aswell.
In other words: if you use Ext3 and you note performance regressions with this release, try disabling barriers ("barriers=0" mount option).
www.rdex.net
This, >9000 times. I don't understand why this would need to be in the official kernel... if somebody really wants/needs it in the kernel, shouldn't they be compiling it in themselves? Why should people have to choose to exclude it?
Doesn't this mean that future security audits have to include this wii driver? Do bloat-conscious or security-minded people have to cut this out?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious, and I'm well aware of how wrong 'common sense' can be when one steps outside of their own field (as I am here), so please feel free to point out how ignorant I am. I really would like to hear a convincing explanation that isn't "Why not? Somebody put the time in and it works."
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
He's not the first to think along those lines. One of the most well-known examples is the Kaypro II computer. It was actually their first product but they wanted that magic "II" after the name.
Actually they've been on a steady quarterly release schedule now for years, one month merge window, two months = 8 weeks of release candidates (RC). If they need more or fewer they simply adjust the length of the merge window, that's the period when all new development of the last months is pulled into the main tree. The release candidates are for QA, bug fixing and regression testing, meanwhile new development continues in branches. The merge window and rc1 can be a little hairy, but rc2+ is normally fine, Linus won't allow crap into any release. So 3.9 would be about two years from now but the way versioning works it'll be followed by 3.10 and 3.11 (unless Linus sees a reason for a 4.0, but it won't be related to going past 3.9...)
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ask your motherboard manufacturer.
Linux entered its 3rd decade with 3.0.
"This is a free minix-like kernel for i386(+) based AT-machines," began the Linux version 0.01 release notes in September of 1991 for the first release of the Linux kernel.