| |||||||||||||
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernelKroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernelPosted Feb 9, 2013 15:54 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)In reply to: Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel by brouhaha Parent article: Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel
Having the reliable multicast transport for local data grams seems like it should be an uncontroversial good feature, and it probably would be if the biggest consumer of it wasn't called d-bus. I don't know how IPC became so politicized.
As far as KMS and DRI, they are definitely in the right place, keep the hardware management in the kernel and all the complicated graphics stack in userspace.
(Log in to post comments)
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 10, 2013 4:49 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
No worries, anybody who thinks that modesetting belongs in user space can't possibly happy with the monolithic Linux kernel anyway. These are uninformed objections, probably written without having looked at any of the code first. Can't imagine they'd get any traction among kernel devs.
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 12, 2013 10:05 UTC (Tue) by ortalo (subscriber, #4654) [Link]
I agree with you. But I am not a kernel devs, and it took several years (I'd say 1998-2004) for the kernel devs to agree fully for KMS in the kernel... Fortunately, these days are gone but the devs are probably still there (fortunately too! ;-).
BTW: Note that I evolved too and now also have sympathy for the idea of not bothering *at all* with undocumented hardware when doing kernel programming. I certainly wouldn't have admitted that 10 years ago, but GPUs nearly fit that class.
|
|||||||||||||