On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:26:33AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > 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? Yes, but that needs documentation, which I'm working on at the moment :) > 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. They do very different things, see this writeup I did a while ago about the differences between them: http://kroah.com/log/blog/2014/01/15/kdbus-details/ thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
