The discussion has not been favorable towards the adoption from current reading on LKML. Past tests have not proven reliability, nor any significant increase of speed of messaging across the IPC. Linus seems to be of no love for it. IMO from the collective discussion, kdbus doesn't seem to be really well designed, fast, or reliable compared to traditional D-Bus and only has a small if minimal gain over traditional D-Bus near negligible. In short, one could wonder if this effort was a complete waste of time, or a convoluted effort to introduce a proprietary IPC in the kernel that can only be used by system so they can kill off netlink support in udev in favor of kdbus. My pick is the latter as we all know how the systemd kabal thinks, and we all can make an educated guess as to where Greg Kroah-Hartman's true loyalties lie. The native IPC for Linux has been reliable, though it's not exactly fast by all means, but in terms of working, it works, does it's job well, and has a proven track record. All it needs are new protocols worked in to help it out by introducing new methods of using the IPC while maintaining legacy pathways. Oddly enough another IPC, Plumper from 9P has been available for some time now, but has never been attempted at a port. I, and possibly others, can only hope Linus actually and ultimately says "no" to kdbus and sees the purpose behind kdbus not being a successor to D-Bus but a proprietary IPC that can be used by system for udev, and only for that purpose. Though should it become part of the mainline, we all know Lennart will waste no time in dropping netlink support in udev just to get his way. If that becomes the case, eudev can hopefully make an effort to keep netlink alive in a separate tree while backporting code in from system-udev, but who knows how long that will last. However, Linus did make a stern warning that if they did anything to break the userspace (and breaking netlink in udev would do just that), they could have any number of penalties from more developers from systemd banned from kernel developments, to as well as possibly code excised from the kernel. My 2 cents, -Jim Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 23:00:55 +1000 From: ad_u...@runbox.com To: dng@lists.dyne.org Subject: [Dng] About (k)dbus in LKML
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9450806 Hot discussion about merging kdbus in kernel. TL;DR: The people who talk about how kdbus improves performance are just full of sh*t. (c) Linus _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
