lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 08:35:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:23:57PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > > I agree. You've sent a pull request for an unfortunate design. I
> > > don't think that unfortunate design belongs in the kernel. If it says
> > > in userspace, then user programmers could potentially fix it some day.
> >
> > You might not like the design, but it is a valid design. Again, we
> > don't refuse to support hardware that is designed badly. Or support
> > protocols we don't necessarily like, that's not the job of a kernel or
> > operating system.
>
> Bullshit. The problem you seem to deliberately ignore is that once it's
> in the kernel, it's impossible to eradicate. It's not just a crap design,
> it's a crap design you are taking in as-is.

It is not a crap design. Go read the link I provided. Havoc points out
exactly why the design is the way it is, for very valid reasons. It's
actually much like X11 is as well, but not like "normal" IP connections
at all.

> And no, "the sole consumer of that API knows better, so bend over" is not
> a good idea. We have shitloads of examples when single-consumer APIs
> turned into screaming horrors; taking that in over the objections to API
> design, merely on "they do it that way, who the hell we are to say they
> are wrong?" is insane.

Again, in this domain, the design is sound. So much so that everyone
who works in that area moved toward it (KDE, Qt, Go, etc.) We might not
think it makes sense, and it did take me a while to wrap my head around
it, but to call it "crap" is unfair, sorry.

greg k-h



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-14 22:01    [W:0.245 / U:13.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site