Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1423198AbbD2PDs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:03:48 -0400
Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:35575 "EHLO imap.thunk.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1423097AbbD2PDq (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:03:46 -0400
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:03:41 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Harald Hoyer <harald@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1
Message-ID: <20150429150341.GA12374@thunk.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Harald Hoyer <harald@redhat.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <21824.5086.446831.189915@quad.stoffel.home>
 <5540D2F9.2010704@redhat.com>
 <CAFLxGvzz3ac19J=dC_gWrrY=BG4h-LO+uRn2rOr1eWyVnk3vzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5540DEEB.2060405@redhat.com>
 <5540E0C7.3050106@nod.at>
 <5540E432.9020606@redhat.com>
 <5540E4D9.6000007@nod.at>
 <5540E684.4070606@redhat.com>
 <5540E821.8050204@nod.at>
 <5540F081.9090005@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5540F081.9090005@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1333
Lines: 27

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 04:53:53PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> Sure, I can write one binary to rule them all, pull out all the code from all
> tools I need, but for me an IPC mechanism sounds a lot better. And it should be
> _one_ common IPC mechanism and not a plethora of them. It should feel like an
> operating system and not like a bunch of thrown together software, which is
> glued together with some magic shell scripts.

And so requiring wireshark (and X?) in initramfs to debug problems
once dbus is introduced is better?

I would think shell scripts are *easier* to debug when things go
wrong, especially in a minimal environment such as an initial ram
disk.  Having had to debug problems in a distro initramfs when trying
to help a customer bring up a FC boot disk long ago in another life,
I'm certain I would rather debug problems while on site at a
classified machine room[1] using shell scripts, and trying to debug
dbus is something that would be infinitely worse.

						- Ted

[1] So no laptop, no google, no access to sources to figure out random
dbus messages, etc.
--
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/