[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1410300024530.11562@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:26:33 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
cc: linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
john.stultz@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de, tj@...nel.org,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>, desrt@...rt.ca,
hadess@...ess.net, dh.herrmann@...il.com, tixxdz@...ndz.org,
simon.mcvittie@...labora.co.uk, daniel@...que.org,
alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk, javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk,
teg@...m.no
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Add kdbus implementation
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > It seems to me that most of the highlight features from the cover letter
> > > can be "easily" (for certain definition of that word, of course)
> > > implemented in userspace (vmsplice(), sending fd through unix socket, user
> > > namespaces, UUID management, etc).
> >
> > We have dbus in userspace today, but that requires extra copies of data,
>
> But we can do zero-copy between processess for quite some time already, so
> what exactly is the issue here?
>
> > and isn't easy, or even possible, to do some of the application-specific
> > bus logic that kdbus provides.
>
> I unfortunately have absolutely no idea what should I imagine here.
Also, I think I have heard that binder is going out of staging now, right?
I admittedly have very limited understanding of both binder and kdbus, but
I guess that is the case for many folks. My understanding is that they are
providing very similar functionality, so explanation why we need *both* in
the kernel would be very interesting as well.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists