Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:20:34 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1 |
| |
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:00:50AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 15.04.2015 um 10:48 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 08:54:07AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote: > >>>> We had been there before. To paraphrase another... meticulously honorable > >>>> person, "if you didn't want something relied upon, why have you put it into the > >>>> kernel?" Said person is on the record as having no problem whatsoever with > >>>> adding dependencies to the bottom of userland stack. > >>> > >>> It appears that, if kdbus is merged, upstream udev may end up requiring it: > >>> > >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html > >> > >> Why so surprised? > >> kdbus will be a major hard-dependency for every non-trivial userland. > >> Like cgroups... > > > > Maybe because things like cgroups, and kdbus in the future, solves a > > need that the developers in that area have to solve problems and > > provide functionality that their users require? > > I agree that a high level bus is needed and dbus is not perfect. > But this does not mean that we need a in-kernel dbus in any case.
So what do you propose to solve the issues presented in my original email about the usecases that this code addresses?
> > Look, us kernel developers only work on one huge, multithreaded, global > > state binary. Our experience in multi-application interactions with > > shared state and permission requirements is usually quite limited. If > > you don't trust the developers of those programs outside the kernel, > > don't use them, there are still distros out there that don't require > > them. > > We're all forced to use cgroups, systemd, udev unless we want to have busybox > as userland. That's a fact.
Is that a problem?
> systemd and its dependencies are not a bad thing per se. > But we have to be very sure that new hard-dependencies are > in well shape before we push them into the kernel.
That's fine, and normal, and I expect it. But please provide technical reasons why the proposal is not acceptable, like Andy has done in this thread.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |