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  , and
> instead try to develop another one, which is not secure as I heard?
>  http://tldp.org/LDP/lpg/node7.html
>  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