4 ms·

Just so long as kdbus hasn't been merged yet...

by qwertyuiop924 10y ago

dcgudeman 10y ago
why is kdbus bad?
- mackal 10y ago
  Because it's related to systemd.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    No, because it's an overcomplicated system that's putting things into the kernel that definitely don't belong there, because the userspace implementation was slow, which, according to Linus, was not an inherent problem with the idea of putting it in userspace, but was because the code was written by a bunch of monkeys at typewriters.
tangent128 10y ago
It appears that kdbus is being reworked into BUS1[0]; the new API looks a lot less warty. [0] http://www.bus1.org/bus1.html http://www.bus1.org/bus1.html
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  That looks... better, but still ugly. I'd rather the whole thing was killed.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Won't happen, as systemd relies on dbus too much (to the point that it may well panic the kernel by shutting down if dbus goes belly up). I do believe that right now you basically have to start dbus using initramfs so that it is ready for use by the time the kernel starts up systemd. Franky the number of things that they cram into initramfs on a systemd based distro is nauseating.
broodbucket 10y ago
I'm a bit out of the loop on kdbus, why didn't it get merged? It was my understanding that it had a brief stint in linux-next, so it must have been getting close...
- viraptor 10y ago
  It was so big not many people wanted to review it properly. There weren't many steps of implementation (essentially a single-patch dump) and it had some high level features which don't necessarily belong to the kernel. Developers of kdbus also brought up performance gains a few times, even though it's been pointed out the userland is not the problem. It was the actual implementation that was bad. It's being reworked into bus1 which is a slim, generic bus implementation. Full dbus can be implemented over it, but it's not forced on people who just want a nice, light bus interface with some security guarantees.

Just so long as kdbus hasn't been merged yet...

dcgudeman 10y ago

why is kdbus bad?

mackal 10y ago
Because it's related to systemd.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  No, because it's an overcomplicated system that's putting things into the kernel that definitely don't belong there, because the userspace implementation was slow, which, according to Linus, was not an inherent problem with the idea of putting it in userspace, but was because the code was written by a bunch of monkeys at typewriters.

tangent128 10y ago

It appears that kdbus is being reworked into BUS1[0]; the new API looks a lot less warty. [0] http://www.bus1.org/bus1.html http://www.bus1.org/bus1.html

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
That looks... better, but still ugly. I'd rather the whole thing was killed.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Won't happen, as systemd relies on dbus too much (to the point that it may well panic the kernel by shutting down if dbus goes belly up). I do believe that right now you basically have to start dbus using initramfs so that it is ready for use by the time the kernel starts up systemd. Franky the number of things that they cram into initramfs on a systemd based distro is nauseating.

broodbucket 10y ago

I'm a bit out of the loop on kdbus, why didn't it get merged? It was my understanding that it had a brief stint in linux-next, so it must have been getting close...

viraptor 10y ago
It was so big not many people wanted to review it properly. There weren't many steps of implementation (essentially a single-patch dump) and it had some high level features which don't necessarily belong to the kernel. Developers of kdbus also brought up performance gains a few times, even though it's been pointed out the userland is not the problem. It was the actual implementation that was bad. It's being reworked into bus1 which is a slim, generic bus implementation. Full dbus can be implemented over it, but it's not forced on people who just want a nice, light bus interface with some security guarantees.