Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Version 3 Of KDBUS Posted For The Mainline Linux Kernel

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

  • Version 3 Of KDBUS Posted For The Mainline Linux Kernel

    Phoronix: Version 3 Of KDBUS Posted For The Mainline Linux Kernel

    Version 3 of the KDBUS patches for eventual integration into the mainline Linux kernel were published on Friday...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...3-Linux-Kernel

  • #2
    This time could be the right time! All the previous issues are been addressed so there should be no more objection to include in the next kenel, I guess.

    Comment


    • #3
      Haven't looked at the changes yet but I'm frightened that Binder was merged before kdbus.

      **looks worryingly at sky and horizon**

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by liam View Post
        Haven't looked at the changes yet but I'm frightened that Binder was merged before kdbus.

        **looks worryingly at sky and horizon**
        It looks like they heard you:
        Regarding binder: binder and kdbus follow very different design
        concepts. Binder implies the use of thread-pools to dispatch incoming
        method calls. This is a very efficient scheme, and completely natural
        in programming languages like Java. On most Linux programs, however,
        there's a much stronger focus on central poll() loops that dispatch all
        sources a program cares about. kdbus is much more usable in such
        environments, as it doesn't enforce a threading model, and it is happy
        with serialized dispatching. In fact, this major difference had an
        effect on much of the design decisions: binder does not guarantee global
        message ordering due to the parallel dispatching in the thread-pools,
        but kdbus does. Moreover, there's also a difference in the way message
        handling. In kdbus, every message is basically taken and dispatched as
        one blob, while in binder, continious connections to other peers are
        created, which are then used to send messages on. Hence, the models are
        quite different, and they serve different needs. I believe that the
        D-Bus/kdbus model is more compatible and friendly with how Linux
        programs are usually implemented.
        Why you are afraid about what will be included first? it seems like they serve different needs, isn't it?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by valeriodean View Post
          It looks like they heard you:

          Why you are afraid about what will be included first? it seems like they serve different needs, isn't it?
          It was a joke. Binder, for a long time, was considered to be one of the pieces of android that would never be merged. Hence, looking to see if sky is falling

          As for serving the same needs, binder has security issues, as seen in one, well publicized bug a few months back.
          Its efficiency isn't nearly as important now that arm devices are so much more powerful. However, given we don't have any hard data on like for like comparisons between them, we don't know what the resource usage differential is.

          Comment


          • #6
            I truly hope they do a thorough review before letting them merge it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
              I truly hope they do a thorough review before letting them merge it.
              notice the 3rd try to merge it. this implies there were 2 failed attempts. i think that should cover your fears well enough

              i personally really hope they get in mainline, kdbus is one of major points in sandboxed apps and those can fix most of the complaints people (especially developers) usually have with linux. complaints like different lib versions in distros simply vanish

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by justmy2cents View Post
                notice the 3rd try to merge it. this implies there were 2 failed attempts. i think that should cover your fears well enough

                i personally really hope they get in mainline, kdbus is one of major points in sandboxed apps and those can fix most of the complaints people (especially developers) usually have with linux. complaints like different lib versions in distros simply vanish
                or it is 2nd? i know version 2 was proposed, not about version 1. my bad if i was wrong

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by justmy2cents View Post
                  notice the 3rd try to merge it. this implies there were 2 failed attempts. i think that should cover your fears well enough

                  i personally really hope they get in mainline, kdbus is one of major points in sandboxed apps and those can fix most of the complaints people (especially developers) usually have with linux. complaints like different lib versions in distros simply vanish
                  This is not the third attempt to merge it, this is the third version committed for review. Of course when something is up for review it will be changed according to the feedback it will get. This is normal procedure and far from being "failed attempts".
                  Stop fearmongering.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post
                    This is not the third attempt to merge it, this is the third version committed for review. Of course when something is up for review it will be changed according to the feedback it will get. This is normal procedure and far from being "failed attempts".
                    Stop fearmongering.
                    fearmongering? what do you mean? i wouldn't say if i would be against kdbus, which i'm not. i'm all for it and as far as i understand putting something into review where it has complaints on too many aspects it needs to be changed is a failed attempt that requires addressing and resubmitting. was there ever any submission in kernel that didn't go trough same loops?

                    then again, it might just be that my english is worse than it is and you're right in your claim. in that case... my bad

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X