Package Details: linux-pf 6.15.pf1-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/linux-pf.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: linux-pf
Description: The pf-kernel and modules
Upstream URL: https://pfkernel.natalenko.name
Keywords: bbr bbr3 bbrv3 kernel linux linux-pf ovpn-dco pf-kernel v4l2loopback
Licenses: GPL-2.0-only
Provides: KSMBD-MODULE, linux-pf, NTFS3-MODULE, NTSYNC-MODULE, OVPN-MODULE, V4L2LOOPBACK-MODULE, VIRTUALBOX-GUEST-MODULES, WIREGUARD-MODULE
Replaces: virtualbox-guest-modules-arch, wireguard-arch
Submitter: nous
Maintainer: post-factum
Last Packager: post-factum
Votes: 209
Popularity: 0.004718
First Submitted: 2011-07-24 12:01 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-05-31 15:59 (UTC)

Dependencies (20)

Required by (13)

Sources (2)

Pinned Comments

post-factum commented on 2023-09-25 20:30 (UTC) (edited on 2024-10-08 14:21 (UTC) by post-factum)

Official binary builds for various x86_64 ISA levels are available here.

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 .. 106 Next › Last »

<deleted-account> commented on 2013-01-05 14:23 (UTC)

i have kernel panic, when plugin charger (trobles with BFS). if i change bfs to noop - work fine.

jnbek commented on 2013-01-04 15:46 (UTC)

I got the prompt for _SUBLEVEL and it worked like peaches and creme, thanks again for being so proactive @nous :D

jnbek commented on 2013-01-01 00:40 (UTC)

@nous: I really appreciate your quick action to suggestions and queries. I will test the _SUBLEVEL prompt here in a while when I have a chance to upgrade. Thanks again for your hard work in acquiescing to my nonsensical whims :)

nous commented on 2012-12-31 23:38 (UTC)

To compile nvidia, until they sniff the change in 3.7: sudo ln -s /usr/src/linux-$(uname -r)/include/generated/uapi/linux/version.h /usr/src/linux-$(uname -r)/include/linux/version.h As for the sublevel prompt, it would only appear when a non-generic CPU was selected; fixed in 3.7.1-3 (hopefully). Happy 2013!

jnbek commented on 2012-12-31 15:21 (UTC)

yea, I been meaning to mention this for a few days, and keep forgetting for one reason or a thousand. I have yet to be prompted by the PKGBUILD if I want to set _SUBLEVEL=y or not.. I go through the questions, and it just goes straight to the build... defaulting to no sublevel... Not sire what the issue is, I've just gone and set it to Y manually in the PKGBUILD to accomodate my sometimes seedy desires. But now that I remember, I can now live my life to it's fullest knowing that I have finally reported my _SUBLEVEL issue here :D

jahiy commented on 2012-12-31 11:59 (UTC)

Please set _SUBLEVEL to "y"(default), or nvidia cannot be complied correctly without SUBLEVEL!!

nous commented on 2012-12-22 11:52 (UTC)

"Core2 is one that the kernel devs include in the source." Thank you.

graysky commented on 2012-12-22 11:01 (UTC)

@nous - Core2 vs generic was only 88 ms faster. Core2 is one that the kernel devs include in the source. If you are rejecting the others based on your argument about practical significance, then why are you offering any optimized builds? Based on these data, they all offer, in you option, no practical significance. Do you see the disconnect here?

nous commented on 2012-12-22 10:32 (UTC)

@Thaodan: The gcc-4.7 patch is there, the optimizations are enabled but I won't pass them onto the package name beyond the in-kernel maximum (i.e. core2 and k8). To put an end to this, there's already provision for extreme optimization enthusiasts in the PKGBUILD: uncomment the 'export KCFLAGS="-march=native -Ofast"' line just before make bzImage and one gets the fastest kernel in the universe one's CPU can run (I do, for my core2 laptop). That been said, I won't add optimizations into the PKGBUILD other than those from the upstream kernel. @graysky: The same obvious fact is stated in lkml; statistically significant does not mean practically significant. As I've written elsewhere, I believe the kernel developers know better than me when to include a CPU optimization into the kernel configuration. Please, if it's not a great hassle, run a comparison between core2 and avx-i kernels. We've spent more time on this topic than all our CPU's combined would've saved running coreavx kernels for several thousand years.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 .. 106 Next › Last »