dbus moving into kernel?

Joshua Judson Rosen rozzin at geekspace.com
Fri Sep 17 14:51:28 CEST 2010

Patryk Benderz <Patryk.Benderz at esp.pl> writes:
> Dnia 2010-09-16, czw o godzinie 17:23 +0100, Al Johnson pisze:
> > kdbus is proof-of-concept at the moment, the idea being to reduce the number 
> > of context switches needed for each dbus message. One synthetic benchmark 
> > shows a 3x speed increase on the n900 but speedup in real world applications 
> > seems much more modest.
> There are a lot of complaints about Dbus IPC. That makes me wonder why
> people don't use one of already existing kernel IPCs [1][2] , and
> instead try to develop another one, which is not secure as I heard?
> [1] http://tldp.org/LDP/lpg/node7.html
> [2] http://tldp.org/LDP/tlk/ipc/ipc.html

I once heard a conversation between two of my fellow engineers:

   e0: I think it's time we came up with something like an API.
   e1: We have an API.
   e0 (joking): What, `PEEK and POKE'?
   e1 (seriously): Yes--`PEEK and POKE' *is* an API.

(neither e0 nor I work there, anymore--but I hear that e1 got promoted)

Of course people *do* use pipes and sockets, etc.: those are
the primitives on which something more fully-featured
(like RPC, or CORBA, or D-Bus) is built.

"Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))."

More information about the community mailing list