▲ 332 ▼ Yes, you can have too many CPU cores - Ampere's 192-core chips break ARM64 Linux kernel in two-socket systems, company requests higher core count support (www.tomshardware.com) submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world 39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago* (3 children) Umm, build it yourselves…? Anyone can fork an build a custom kernel. Edit: looks like they kinda sorta did. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ISometimesAdmin@the.coolest.zone 33 points 2 years ago Yeah the headline is stupid bait. They already built it. They're trying to contribute the change upstream. Which is technically "requesting higher core support", but is a very obnoxious way to phrase it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fluxion@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* If you fork it, you're stuck maintaining your own kernel. It quickly becomes a nightmare as you accumulate more custom changes while bringing in fixes/features from mainline kernel. They've already submitted a patch to change the mainline/upstream kernel. If the community/maintainers accept the patch then they won't need to fork it and can rely on distros backporting the support to older/downstream kernels if needed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Isnt proposing it something different than just creating a pull request? I'd say waiting for green light from the maintainers and then work on it might be more beneficial. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago From my understanding, many companies have forked the main kernel to shape it to their needs. But I could be wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ISometimesAdmin@the.coolest.zone 33 points 2 years ago Yeah the headline is stupid bait. They already built it. They're trying to contribute the change upstream. Which is technically "requesting higher core support", but is a very obnoxious way to phrase it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* If you fork it, you're stuck maintaining your own kernel. It quickly becomes a nightmare as you accumulate more custom changes while bringing in fixes/features from mainline kernel. They've already submitted a patch to change the mainline/upstream kernel. If the community/maintainers accept the patch then they won't need to fork it and can rely on distros backporting the support to older/downstream kernels if needed. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Isnt proposing it something different than just creating a pull request? I'd say waiting for green light from the maintainers and then work on it might be more beneficial. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago From my understanding, many companies have forked the main kernel to shape it to their needs. But I could be wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago From my understanding, many companies have forked the main kernel to shape it to their needs. But I could be wrong. permalink fedilink source parent