Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 3.17 Lands Memfd, A KDBUS Prerequisite

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

  • Linux 3.17 Lands Memfd, A KDBUS Prerequisite

    Phoronix: Linux 3.17 Lands Memfd, A KDBUS Prerequisite

    There's many new features to Linux 3.17 that were covered over the past two weeks on Phoronix. One of the merged Linux 3.17 features that went under our radar at the time was the new memfd syscall was merged, which is a requirement of the forthcoming KDBUS, the kernel-based D-Bus implementation sought after by the systemd crew...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc2NzQ

  • #2
    so it's like shm_open but with using a fd instead of a name ?
    i thought it would allow changing permissions on the fly; guess i have to read better next time

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh look, cancer spreading...
      Yet another infection to remove before compiling...

      Comment


      • #4
        Could wayland_shm use memfds?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by atari314 View Post
          Oh look, cancer spreading...
          Yet another infection to remove before compiling...
          if you can do better show some code....

          Comment


          • #6
            How about you guys educate yourself before complaining? memfd has nothing to do with kdbus except that kdbus happens to use it. For details, see:

            http://dvdhrm.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/memfd_create2/

            You read it? Ok, now continue calling work of other people "infectious cancer" without having a clue what it is all about...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dvdhrm View Post
              How about you guys educate yourself before complaining? memfd has nothing to do with kdbus except that kdbus happens to use it. For details, see:

              http://dvdhrm.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/memfd_create2/

              You read it? Ok, now continue calling work of other people "infectious cancer" without having a clue what it is all about...
              Thank you. I was getting annoyed with all this stupidity.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by atari314 View Post
                Oh look, cancer spreading...
                Yet another infection to remove before compiling...
                Why ? It is meant to enable dbus replacement that will be far leaner. What's so wrong with that ?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Brane215 View Post
                  Why ? It is meant to enable dbus replacement that will be far leaner. What's so wrong with that ?
                  There's some people on these boards that do their best to rip out anything dbus related if at all possible.. theyve said so before in other Dbus related threads.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                    There's some people on these boards that do their best to rip out anything dbus related if at all possible.. theyve said so before in other Dbus related threads.
                    no arguing with irrationality..

                    someone better not tell 'em that dbus uses sockets, lest they try to build a kernel without socket support :-P

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by robclark View Post
                      no arguing with irrationality..

                      someone better not tell 'em that dbus uses sockets, lest they try to build a kernel without socket support :-P
                      If only it used just sockets! Dbus also runs as a process, imagine that!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jacob View Post
                        If only it used just sockets! Dbus also runs as a process, imagine that!
                        It's written using a programming language! Oh the horror!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by robclark View Post
                          no arguing with irrationality..

                          someone better not tell 'em that dbus uses sockets, lest they try to build a kernel without socket support :-P
                          That would certainly help keeping the noise level down in the forums...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by dvdhrm View Post
                            memfd has nothing to do with kdbus except that kdbus happens to use it. For details, see:
                            http://dvdhrm.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/memfd_create2/
                            Thanks for the links it was interesting and it seems like a nice feature.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              D-Bus is not a problem by itself. What I don't like is that kdbus/systemd is choking off what I used to like about GNU/Linux, namely its simplicity and fine control. Hence why I and several others use BSD and in my case, commercial UNIX now.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X