|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

The impasse in the kdbus discussion: Did we learn nothing from AF_UNIX attempt?

The impasse in the kdbus discussion: Did we learn nothing from AF_UNIX attempt?

Posted Apr 25, 2015 17:26 UTC (Sat) by ploxiln (subscriber, #58395)
In reply to: The impasse in the kdbus discussion: Did we learn nothing from AF_UNIX attempt? by daniels
Parent article: The kdbuswreck

From that posting:

"The first approach was to create a new AF_DBUS socket address family and
move the routing logic of the D-bus daemon to the kernel. The motivations behind
that approach and the thread of the patches post can be found in [1] and [2].

The feedback was that having D-bus specific code in the kernel is a bad
idea so the second approach was to implement multicast Unix domain sockets so
clients can directly send messages to peers bypassing the D-bus daemon."

So now that kernel developers are trying to fend off what amounts to a lot *more* "D-bus specific code in the kernel", AF_BUS is a lot more appealing. If two years ago they said "... and if not this, we're going to get in a D-bus specific monstrosity via GregKH", and the core kernel devs believed it, they might have put a lot more pressure on DaveM to let something minimal through.

But now, D-bus proponents are unlikely to let go of their perfect-fit subsystem, the result of a lot of work, and which seemed so close to getting in.


to post comments


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds