Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20120629.165023.1605284574408858612.davem@davemloft.net>
To: vincent.sanders@collabora.co.uk
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AF_BUS socket address family
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120629234230.GA11480@kyllikki.org>
References: <20120629231236.GA28593@mail.collabora.co.uk>
	<20120629.161821.948325645333976311.davem@davemloft.net>
	<20120629234230.GA11480@kyllikki.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 902
Lines: 24

From: Vincent Sanders <vincent.sanders@collabora.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:42:30 +0100

> Basically you are indicating you would be completely opposed to any
> mechanism involving D-Bus IPC and the kernel? 

I would not oppose existing mechanisms, which I do not believe is
impossible to use in your scenerio.

What you really don't get is that packet drops and event losses are
absolutely fundamental.

As long as receivers lack infinite receive queue this will always be
the case.

Multicast operates in non-reliable transports only so that one stuck
or malfunctioning receiver doesn't screw things over for everyone nor
unduly brudon the sender.

--
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/