Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

Austin S Hemmelgarn
2015-04-15T17:59:42Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1499 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2967 bytes --]