Linux 4.19

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.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;riscv&#x2F;riscv-linux" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;riscv&#x2F;riscv-linux</a>

See summary at <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;kernelnewbies.org&#x2F;Linux_4.19" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;kernelnewbies.org&#x2F;Linux_4.19</a>

Although it doesn&#x27;t specifically mention it, this kernel supports Apple&#x27;s Magic Trackpad 2, which is a real blessing.<p>Original source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;robotrovsky&#x2F;Linux-Magic-Trackpad-2-Driver" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;robotrovsky&#x2F;Linux-Magic-Trackpad-2-Driver</a><p>I&#x27;ve been using this since last night, and with some tweaking, it works really well.

I&#x27;ve read a few things about the latest happenings with regards to Linus and the kernel, but I feel like I&#x27;m missing something here. Can someone summarize for me, or point me at a good summary?<p>Edit: Who is Greg KH and why is this significant and what is the relationship between Greg KH and Linus (and the community)?

I think all this handwringing over the CoC would have more weight for me if:<p>a) It came from major Linux contributors.<p>b) It didn&#x27;t assume a conspiracy to not only oust Linus but also get him to dance to their tune.

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?

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.

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.<p>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.<p>The recent reaction from Valve is telling, I think Gabe is fearful about the current state of affairs. We really don&#x27;t know all the pieces of this puzzle though, so best to watch our backs. Avoid vendor lock-in, its the devil.

Related: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lkml.org&#x2F;lkml&#x2F;2018&#x2F;10&#x2F;22&#x2F;188" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lkml.org&#x2F;lkml&#x2F;2018&#x2F;10&#x2F;22&#x2F;188</a> Can&#x27;t agree more.

Having someone else manage merges into the stable kernel branch isn&#x27;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.

Some important fixes in amdgpu for Vega there. It&#x27;s finally waking up from sleep properly when using DisplayPort.

OpenCV 3.4.2 not capturing Picam on Raspberry Pi 3.

I think the code of conduct stuff worked out well in the end, especially as cooler heads prevailed.<p>In the `code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst` document they write:<p>``` 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. ```<p>``` 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. ```<p>Ultimately this tempers the worries of many about the C-o-C resulting in a tool used by those with politically charged agendas.

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

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&#x27;t align best with kernel user interests. Can&#x27;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.