Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 9th Feb 2013 02:04 UTC, submitted by ac
Linux "Both of these articles allude to the fact that I'm working on putting the D-Bus protocol into the kernel, in order to help achieve these larger goals of proper IPC for applications. And I'd like to confirm that yes, this is true, but it's not going to be D-Bus like you know it today. Our goal (and I use 'goal' in a very rough term, I have 8 pages of scribbled notes describing what we want to try to implement here), is to provide a reliable multicast and point-to-point messaging system for the kernel, that will work quickly and securely. On top of this kernel feature, we will try to provide a 'libdbus' interface that allows existing D-Bus users to work without ever knowing the D-Bus daemon was replaced on their system."
Thread beginning with comment 552016
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I wonder...
by galvanash on Sun 10th Feb 2013 00:48 UTC in reply to "I wonder..."
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Are we looking here at a very careful attempt to slowly turn the Linux kernel into a micro-kernel?


There is a helluva lot more to a micro-kernel than just providing IPC. You have to actually start using it for in-kernel stuff. For example, I don't see DBUS being used underneath the syscall interface anytime soon (or ever), but once its firmly in the kernel it could make sense for a few things where simplicity and flexibility trump performance. If a truly logical argument for such a usage case is ever made, I don't really expect that their would be much resistance - even from Linus. Even then, selective use doesn't turn Linux into a micro-kernel - its just pragmatism.

Reply Parent Score: 4