Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

D-Bus Implementation Aiming For The Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
    We need to merge Gnome, systemd, ... into kernel and make Linux even more bloated.
    Aw! I just wanted to post that! Stop ruining all our trolling fun!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by libv View Post
      Aw! I just wanted to post that! Stop ruining all our trolling fun!
      They are doing it backwards. They should be merging the kernel and D-Bus into SystemD. Then rejecting Linus' patched :P

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Ericg View Post
        No but its also the issue of finally getting Kernel-IPC "right." If we had gotten IPC right the first time we wouldn't have required AF_BUS or Dbus, since we DID come up with those 2 followups there's obviously something wrong with whatever the current implementation is. Going with dbus has the added bonus of speeding up any dbus-enabled program which is.... all of Gnome, KDE, XCFE, any program designed FOR those DE's...do you see a pattern forming? Pretty sure Greg has a phoronix account, I'd love for him to post the exact downsides of the current IPC mechanism.
        I'm sure I'm missing something but since dbus, I believe, supports fd passing, where is the memcpy occuring?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by liam View Post
          I'm sure I'm missing something but since dbus, I believe, supports fd passing, where is the memcpy occuring?
          Ask Greg next time he pops on the forums or head to his G+ page, he's the one who brought it up.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by HyperDrive View Post
            Could this replace Binder (on Android)...?
            According to Greg's comments on G+, it's his expectation that Binder could be re-implemented on top of this.

            People are getting hung up on the idea that they're moving the entire dbus daemon into the kernel, but that doesn't appear accurate. Rather, they're designing a new IPC mechanism in the kernel that dbus and Binder could be built on. There's no detail available yet, but I assume the kernel will provide a framework for delivery of generic messages, while the existing userspace code will remain responsible for the API and the structure of those messages.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Ericg View Post
              No but its also the issue of finally getting Kernel-IPC "right." If we had gotten IPC right the first time we wouldn't have required AF_BUS or Dbus, since we DID come up with those 2 followups there's obviously something wrong with whatever the current implementation is. Going with dbus has the added bonus of speeding up any dbus-enabled program which is.... all of Gnome, KDE, XCFE, any program designed FOR those DE's...do you see a pattern forming? Pretty sure Greg has a phoronix account, I'd love for him to post the exact downsides of the current IPC mechanism.
              Why not build dbus library on top of AF_BUS?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                Why not build dbus library on top of AF_BUS?
                IPC clients are probaly still gonna talk dbusish. Having in-kernel IPC is just a matter exploiting the advantages.

                Sure thing though; having the evil cabal doing stuff will start forks. Within a week we can expect a ebus fork. E for experimental. It will live in the realms of gentoo. Sure thing.
                Last edited by funkSTAR; 02-09-2013, 04:36 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                  Why not build dbus library on top of AF_BUS?
                  Perhaps the blog post this whole thread is about contains the answer: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/af_bus.html

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                    IPC clients are probaly still gonna talk dbusish. Having in-kernel IPC is just a matter exploiting the advantages.
                    AF_BUS itself is protocol agnostic and implements the configured policy between attachments which allows for a bus master to leave a bus and communication between clients to continue.
                    http://lwn.net/Articles/504722/


                    Originally posted by strcat View Post
                    Perhaps the blog post this whole thread is about contains the answer: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/af_bus.html
                    Not it doesn't.
                    Last edited by LightBit; 02-09-2013, 04:45 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I have to admire all those posters in this thread who think they're smarter, more capable and know better than Greg. You're all kernel devs, right?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                        I have to admire all those posters in this thread who think they're smarter, more capable and know better than Greg. You're all kernel devs, right?
                        Better than Greg? No better than Greg, Kay and Lennart combined. The moronix elite can fork their way to "less bloat and more UNIX" What a bunch of neckbearded forksters.
                        Last edited by funkSTAR; 02-09-2013, 05:35 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                          I have to admire all those posters in this thread who think they're smarter, more capable and know better than Greg. You're all kernel devs, right?

                          Why so many people think, if somebody is complaining about something, he think he is smarter, more capable and know better?

                          I'm only concerned that he is focusing on performance too much.
                          It's funny when you read "The Linux Kernel Console Is Being Killed Off" and than "D-Bus Implementation Aiming For The Linux Kernel".

                          More info is needed about this:
                          - How many new system calls will be requred? (AF_BUS reuses networking system calls)
                          - How many lines of code in kernel?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                            No but its also the issue of finally getting Kernel-IPC "right." If we had gotten IPC right the first time we wouldn't have required AF_BUS or Dbus, since we DID come up with those 2 followups there's obviously something wrong with whatever the current implementation is. Going with dbus has the added bonus of speeding up any dbus-enabled program which is.... all of Gnome, KDE, XCFE, any program designed FOR those DE's...do you see a pattern forming? Pretty sure Greg has a phoronix account, I'd love for him to post the exact downsides of the current IPC mechanism.
                            Couldn't agree more. I simply don't understand what was happening in the minds of Unix developers where they designed an IPC system which has no guarantees where the message will end up (not even round-robin, just random) and is basically one-way only.

                            There's a need for a multicast IPC system and AF_BUS doesn't cut it for mainline so Greg (and few other people) work on something better.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                              Yes it does. AF_BUS has been consistently rejected by upstream. Using it would mean adjusting every dbus program, meanwhile moving from dbus-daemon to kernel-dbus could be done transparently.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                As I understand it it's not kernel dbus. It's a generic IPC in the kernel. In the user space they have a frontend so they get compatibility with the different formats like dbus or binder? I suppose the dbus frontend is Poetterings share of it (or it was a joke, I'm not completely sure..)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X