On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:31:55AM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:19:06PM +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > These two statements somehow contradict. From my admittedly very > > limited experience, I never used D-Bus because it did not > > fit my usage scenarios: I never needed a bus, only point-to-point > > links like pipes or sockets. > > Great, then you don't need this, no need to worry about it at all, why > are we having this conversation? :) Well, for one because that's what I wanted to find out... > > Well, it made your intentions a bit clearer, but it does > > not help to sell kdbus to me, sorry ;-/ > > It's not my "goal" to sell kdbus to you, if you don't want it, great, I used this language because I think you're not providing the facts that would allow me to judge for myself whether kdbus is a good idea. Those automotive applications you were talking about, what was the OS they were ported from and what was the messaging API they used? > But odds are, you are using a system with D-Bus today, if not, then you > are using Linux in a very specific and limited manner, which is > wonderful, in that case this whole thread isn't really pertinent. > > Lots of people do use D-Bus, and for those users, that is what this > patchset is for. As I said before, I'm seeing about a dozen D-Bus messages per minute, nothing that would justify adding kdbus to the kernel for performance reasons. Wrt security I'm also not aware of any open issues with D-Bus. Thus I doubt normal users of D-Bus would see any benefit from kdbus. I also think none of the applications I can install from my distribution has any performance issue with D-Bus. And this is the point where I ask myself if I missed something. Thanks, Johannes -- 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
