From 8d6921f753dc2b7abaa9b6ae0cde1a108f8c186d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@schwinge.name> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:21:07 +0200 Subject: open_issues/dbus_in_linux_kernel: New. --- open_issues/dbus_in_linux_kernel.mdwn | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+) create mode 100644 open_issues/dbus_in_linux_kernel.mdwn (limited to 'open_issues') diff --git a/open_issues/dbus_in_linux_kernel.mdwn b/open_issues/dbus_in_linux_kernel.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7780fc08 --- /dev/null +++ b/open_issues/dbus_in_linux_kernel.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] + +[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable +id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this +document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or +any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant +Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license +is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation +License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] + +Might be interesting to watch how this develops. + +IRC, #hurd, August / September 2010 + + <neal> check this out: + <neal> someone is working on implementing dbus in linux + <neal> linux finally gets mach ipc ;-) + <marcusb> it's old news though, unless there is an update + <marcusb> and I think it was only the client? + <neal> youpi : someone is adding dbus ipc to the linux kernel + <neal> marcusb: I just heard about it. + <youpi> (it's crazy how this drives backward compared to a hurdish approach) + <youpi> what is the motivation for moving to the kernel? + <neal> context switch overhead + <azeem_> they wanna use it to talk to device drivers? :) + <kilobug> well, they did that with the in-kernel web server, but they + abandonned it later on + <neal> azeem: I don't think so. + <neal> dbus in the kernel is actually good for the Hurd as dbus IPC is + basically neutered Mach IPC + <marcusb> I don't think anybody wants to put the dbus server in the kernel + <neal> well, there is at least one person + <marcusb> maybe this is a different news from the one I read + <neal> Alban Crequy (albanc) is working out. He works for collabora, fwiw + +<http://alban.apinc.org/blog/2010/09/15/d-bus-in-the-kernel-faster/> + + <marcusb> what I read was about hal etc + <marcusb> so that you don't need a user space daemon to glue the kernel to the + dbus world + <neal> I don't think that is what he is talking about + <marcusb> I can't find it anymore though. I mentioned it in this channel at + the time though, so it should be in the backlog + <marcusb> neal, yeah could very well be a separate thing + <marcusb> neal, dbus does have marginal support for fd passing though, and some + attempts on the mailing list to make "fds" an official type in the message + failed (as far as I could see, I didn't read the whole discussion) + <marcusb> so no mach ipc just yet + <neal> wrong + <neal> FD handling is in 1.4 + <neal> type o, if I'm not mistaken + <marcusb> then the discussion moved on from initial rejection + <neal> no, 'h' + <marcusb> I'm out of date by two months + <marcusb> ok + <guillem> neal: AFAIR Marcel Holtmann talked about dbus in-kernel several years + ago, but he never ended up implementing it, or there were rumors he had + private "working code" -- cgit v1.2.3