Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

D-Bus Implementation Aiming For The Linux Kernel

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

  • #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