On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:25:55PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> dbus is not an appropriate design for a kernel messaging layer for a
> variety of reasons. That's not to say dbus shouldn't be able to use a
> fast kernel messaging layer, or that one shouldn't exist.
>
> dbus is basically a very large very specialized and somewhat flawed
> policy engine on top of what should be simple messaging. The two need
> splitting apart.
>
> Abstract low level messaging layers are not a new concept. V7 unix had
> one experimentally. It's about getting the separation right.
>
> IMHO that probably involves getting the right people in the right place
> together - dbus designers, MPI and realtime people, kernel folks and
> possibly also some of the hardware messaging folk.
>
> In filesystem terms
>
> - stop writing a dbus only file system
> - figure out what a messaging "vfs" looks like
> - figure out what an clean low level kernel model looks like
> - figure out what has to be where to put the policy in userspace
>
> What might also be worth review is how much dbus traffic actually ought to
> be an object store implemented say with tmpfs and inotify type
> functionality (or extensions of that) so that you can
> set/read/enumerate/get change notifications on properties.
FWIW, this sounds really sane and makes a lot of sense to me. I'd be
willing to give it some review cycles, as far as I can, when done this
way.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
