1,046 karma · joined May 12, 2011
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...
Apple's adapter has turned out not to work on Linux. It might not work with BootCamp either. Seems to require a special driver:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=148238610022972&w=2
"obviously i am interested to get this upstream with the least amount of effort. I am quite aware though that some patches will need an overhaul to be applicable for upstream. its not really my call if it is enough to make this an enable patch and review the quirks enabled by it or if the code needs to be moved."
Upstreaming patches into the kernel requires that you're willing to spend time to rework them so that the result is maintainable. Saying from the start that you only want to do the least amount of work possible isn't helpful.
They do:
"Google Chromebooks outsell Apple Macs" (May 2016)
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-chromebooks-outsell-ap...
Apple could have solved this by connecting a PCIe switch to the root complex and attaching both Thunderbolt controllers below it, but that would have consumed additional energy. Alternatively they could have used a beefier CPU with more PCIe root ports on the CPU, but I guess those available would have been too energy hungry. Which kind of means this is Intel's fault for not providing a low-energy chip with enough PCIe root ports on the CPU.
I'm wondering what the situation is like on the 15" version with discrete graphics. This would require 3 root ports directly on the CPU to drive both Thunderbolt controllers and the GPU with full speed, I assume that's indeed the case since it's not mentioned in the document.
Another thing not mentioned in the document is that energy consumption will be suboptimal if one device is attached on both sides of the machine because it prevents one of the Thunderbolt controllers from powering down. One should connect both devices on one side to improve battery life.
Edit: On Skylake the PCH is apparently optional, the functionality is mostly integrated into the CPU, so the limitation is really the number of lanes provided by the CPU, and this wasn't sufficient to connect both Thunderbolt controllers with 4x. The CPUs used in the 13" model all have 12 lanes, the ones in the 15" model have 16 lanes. So for the top-of-the-line model this could be 4x for each of the Thunderbolt controllers, 4x for the GPU, 2x for the SSD, 1x for Wifi, 1x for HD Audio?
/* Given a path to a DER-encoded CRL file and a path to a PEM-encoded
* CA issuers file, use OpenSSL to validate the CRL. This is a hack,
* necessitated by performance issues with inserting extremely large
* numbers of CRL entries into a CSSM DB (see <rdar://8934440>).
http://opensource.apple.com/source/security_ocspd/security_o...ocspd was introduced with 10.4. A decade ago. And that's really the problem with macOS: There's no refactoring of old hacks, but rather just bolting on of ever more new stuff.
[1] http://www.intelligentmobilityinsight.com/news/ClB/Porsche-t...
[2] http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive...
I'd stick with Unbound. There are a lot of knobs to fiddle with in the config. Be sure to compile against libevent so that you can use the highly scalable epoll as a backend (assuming you're on Linux). Turn up all the limits for cache size etc. Disable DNSSEC validation if you don't care about spoofed records. Ask on the mailing list if you need help, Wouter and his colleagues are very nice and respond very quickly.
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.acpi.devel/82025
At least a patch to recognize the WildcatPoint PCH is in 4.6:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux....
"Unfortunately, company policy prohibits me from sharing the actual code." (http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=145007745502639&w=2)
Use multiple implementations, e.g. NSD/BIND for authoritative servers and Unbound/BIND for resolvers, to mitigate against implementation-specific bugs and vulnerabilities.
It's not a rewrite, amdgpu is a fork of radeon with support added for newer GPUs plus some cleanups and older code stripped off. Which means if you're submitting fixes, you need to submit it to both drivers (at the moment the two patches you'd submit will usually be identical.)
The "more advanced" claim is certainly disputable but OpenZFS has a larger and rapidly growing user base. The ZFSonLinux and OpenZFSonOSX ports in particular are bringing loads of new users to the table, and that means more testing, more contributors, and in the long run more features. (I've also become an occasional ZoL contributor that way.)