Originally posted by Ericg
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
D-Bus Implementation Aiming For The Linux Kernel
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by LightBit View PostWhy not build dbus library on top of AF_BUS?
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; 09 February 2013, 05:36 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by funkSTAR View PostIPC 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.
Originally posted by strcat View PostPerhaps the blog post this whole thread is about contains the answer: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/af_bus.htmlLast edited by LightBit; 09 February 2013, 05:45 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostI 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?Last edited by funkSTAR; 09 February 2013, 06:35 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostI 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
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostNo 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.
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
-
Originally posted by LightBit View PostAll opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.
Comment
-
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
Comment