Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:05:47 +0200 | From | Richard Weinberger <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1 |
| |
Am 30.04.2015 um 16:52 schrieb Łukasz Stelmach: >> Sorry, I thought you mean the races while collecting metadata in userspace... > > My bad, some reace conditions *are* associated with collecting metadata > but ont all. It is impossible (correct me if I am wrong) to implement > reliable die-on-idle with dbus-daemon.
IIRC Andy gave some ideas howto deal with that. i.e. https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/29/622
>>> AF_UNIX with multicast support wouldn't be AF_UNIX anymore. >>> >>> AF_BUS? I haven't followed the discussion back then. Why do you think it >>> is better than kdbus? >> >> Please see https://lwn.net/Articles/641278/ > > Thanks. If I understand correctly, the author suggests using EBPF on a > receiveing socket side for receiving multicast messages. This is nice if > you care about introducing (or not) (too?) much of new code. However, > AFAICT it may be more computationally complex than Bloom filters because > you need to run EBPF on every receiving socket instead of getting a list > of a few of them to copy data to. Of course for small number of > receivers the "constant" cost of running the Bloom filter may be higher.
To make the story short, the kdbus *concept* needs much more thought. There are many ideas out there howto deal with dbus issues without introducing an ad-hoc solution. AF_BUS is just one of them. IMHO AF_BUS would be nice but the decision is not up to me.
Thanks, //richard
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |