Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:54:54 -0300 | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1 | From | Diego Viola <> |
| |
I'd like to see D-Bus in the kernel (kdbus), if that's going to make D-Bus faster.
See this application taking 15 seconds to start just because D-Bus is too slow.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342682
Hopefully kdbus solves problems such as this one.
Diego
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2015-04-14 15:43, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >> 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. >>> >>> >>> 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. >> > > The reason that 'everyone who works in this area' adopted is not as much > that the design is sound (I'm not arguing whether it is or isn't in this > case) as it is that none of them could come up with anything better. >
|  |