Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 68

Thread: KDBUS Is Taking A Lot Of Heat, Might Be Delayed From Mainline Linux Kernel

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    16,798

    Default KDBUS Is Taking A Lot Of Heat, Might Be Delayed From Mainline Linux Kernel

    Phoronix: KDBUS Is Taking A Lot Of Heat, Might Be Delayed From Mainline Linux Kernel

    Earlier this week I wrote about how it looked like KDBUS would be included in the Linux 4.1 kernel given the pull request sent to Linus Torvalds by Greg Kroah-Hartman. However, since that pull request, KDBUS is taking a lot of heat and there's calls for it to be postponed from mainlining...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...US-Taking-Heat

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    From the article:
    With the kernel not being allowed to break its interfaces with user-space, there's much interest in making sure the KDBUS design is right before its cemented within the kernel as a core feature.
    Is that related to the shitty Linux idea of not breaking compatibility with anything ever? Sticking to any extreme is pretty much always a shitty idea.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    From the article:

    Is that related to the shitty Linux idea of not breaking compatibility with anything ever? Sticking to any extreme is pretty much always a shitty idea.
    I am NOT a kernel expert, but even I know that you are completely wrong.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    I am NOT a kernel expert, but even I know that you are completely wrong.
    Dude, either tell on what and why or shut up, and I am not a kernel expert NOR AN ASTRONAUT!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    From the article:

    Is that related to the shitty Linux idea of not breaking compatibility with anything ever? Sticking to any extreme is pretty much always a shitty idea.

    No, it's not that. People have concerns about the design of the protocol (i.e. they think it's poorly thought out). That the kernel won't break ABI is the excuse for not taking it in without a more thorough vetting. In the end, this will result in a better subsystem for linux.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    I am NOT a kernel expert, but even I know that you are completely wrong.
    You know right, probably a troll attept.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pgoetz View Post
    No, it's not that. People have concerns about the design of the protocol (i.e. they think it's poorly thought out). That the kernel won't break ABI is the excuse for not taking it in without a more thorough vetting. In the end, this will result in a better subsystem for linux.
    Now this is a reasonable answer.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    From the article:

    Is that related to the shitty Linux idea of not breaking compatibility with anything ever? Sticking to any extreme is pretty much always a shitty idea.
    There are differences in compatibility. One thing is to drop support for 80386. Another is to break support with user-land. Imagine waking up one morning and your Gnome is broken because you needed to upgrade your kernel in order to get some new drivers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pgoetz View Post
    No, it's not that. People have concerns about the design of the protocol (i.e. they think it's poorly thought out). That the kernel won't break ABI is the excuse for not taking it in without a more thorough vetting. In the end, this will result in a better subsystem for linux.
    but ... shouldn't be the protocol be the same as "regular" dbus? I.e. act as a drop-in-replacement? Which in turn means the protocol is not up for debate ...
    Last edited by YoungManKlaus; 04-15-2015 at 02:18 PM. Reason: add last sentencs

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungManKlaus View Post
    but ... shouldn't be the protocol be the same as "regular" dbus? I.e. act as a drop-in-replacement? Which in turn means the protocol is not up for debate ...
    It is. I saw someone propose that kdbus should break dbus so that applications will have to adopt the new potentially better design.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •