Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932122AbbDOJUr (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 05:20:47 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:33115 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752981AbbDOJUi (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 05:20:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:20:34 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Richard Weinberger Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Al Viro , "Eric W. Biederman" , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , One Thousand Gnomes , Tom Gundersen , Jiri Kosina , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Daniel Mack , David Herrmann , Djalal Harouni Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1 Message-ID: <20150415092034.GA17680@kroah.com> References: <20150413190350.GA9485@kroah.com> <8738434yjk.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20150413194217.GA10837@kroah.com> <20150413202233.GR889@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150415084812.GG16381@kroah.com> <552E28C2.8070409@nod.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <552E28C2.8070409@nod.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2445 Lines: 55 On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:00:50AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 15.04.2015 um 10:48 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 08:54:07AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >>>> We had been there before. To paraphrase another... meticulously honorable > >>>> person, "if you didn't want something relied upon, why have you put it into the > >>>> kernel?" Said person is on the record as having no problem whatsoever with > >>>> adding dependencies to the bottom of userland stack. > >>> > >>> It appears that, if kdbus is merged, upstream udev may end up requiring it: > >>> > >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html > >> > >> Why so surprised? > >> kdbus will be a major hard-dependency for every non-trivial userland. > >> Like cgroups... > > > > Maybe because things like cgroups, and kdbus in the future, solves a > > need that the developers in that area have to solve problems and > > provide functionality that their users require? > > I agree that a high level bus is needed and dbus is not perfect. > But this does not mean that we need a in-kernel dbus in any case. So what do you propose to solve the issues presented in my original email about the usecases that this code addresses? > > Look, us kernel developers only work on one huge, multithreaded, global > > state binary. Our experience in multi-application interactions with > > shared state and permission requirements is usually quite limited. If > > you don't trust the developers of those programs outside the kernel, > > don't use them, there are still distros out there that don't require > > them. > > We're all forced to use cgroups, systemd, udev unless we want to have busybox > as userland. That's a fact. Is that a problem? > systemd and its dependencies are not a bad thing per se. > But we have to be very sure that new hard-dependencies are > in well shape before we push them into the kernel. That's fine, and normal, and I expect it. But please provide technical reasons why the proposal is not acceptable, like Andy has done in this thread. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/