Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

Diego Viola
2015-04-21T16:54:58Z

I'd like to see D-Bus in the kernel (kdbus), if that's going to make
D-Bus faster.

See this application taking 15 seconds to start just because D-Bus is too slow.

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342682

Hopefully kdbus solves problems such as this one.

Diego

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
<ahferroin7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2015-04-14 15:43, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 08:35:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:23:57PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I agree. You've sent a pull request for an unfortunate design. I
>>>>> don't think that unfortunate design belongs in the kernel. If it says
>>>>> in userspace, then user programmers could potentially fix it some day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You might not like the design, but it is a valid design. Again, we
>>>> don't refuse to support hardware that is designed badly. Or support
>>>> protocols we don't necessarily like, that's not the job of a kernel or
>>>> operating system.
>>>
>>>
>>> And no, "the sole consumer of that API knows better, so bend over" is not
>>> a good idea. We have shitloads of examples when single-consumer APIs
>>> turned into screaming horrors; taking that in over the objections to API
>>> design, merely on "they do it that way, who the hell we are to say they
>>> are wrong?" is insane.
>>
>>
>> Again, in this domain, the design is sound. So much so that everyone
>> who works in that area moved toward it (KDE, Qt, Go, etc.) We might not
>> think it makes sense, and it did take me a while to wrap my head around
>> it, but to call it "crap" is unfair, sorry.
>>
>
> The reason that 'everyone who works in this area' adopted is not as much
> that the design is sound (I'm not arguing whether it is or isn't in this
> case) as it is that none of them could come up with anything better.
>