Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:58:54 +0200 | From | Richard Weinberger <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1 |
| |
Am 29.04.2015 um 16:53 schrieb Harald Hoyer: > On 29.04.2015 16:18, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Am 29.04.2015 um 16:11 schrieb Harald Hoyer: >>>>> We don't handcraft the initramfs script for every our customers, therefore we >>>>> have to generically support hotplug, persistent device names, persistent >>>>> interface names, network connectivity in the initramfs, user input handling for >>>>> passwords, fonts, keyboard layouts, fips, fsck, repair tools for file systems, >>>>> raid assembly, LVM assembly, multipath, crypto devices, live images, iSCSI, >>>>> FCoE, all kinds of filesystems with their quirks, IBM z-series support, resume >>>>> from hibernation, […] >>>> >>>> This is correct. But which of these tools/features depend on dbus? >>> >>> I would love to add dbus support to all of them and use it, so I can connect >>> them all more easily. No need for them to invent their own version of IPC, >>> which can only be used by their own tool set. >> >> Why/how do you need to connect them? >> Sorry for being persistent but as I use most of these tools too (also in initramfs) >> I'm very curious. >> >> Many of us grumpy kernel devs simply don't know all the use case of you have to cover. >> So, please explain. :-) >> > > Well, using shell scripts I connected all of these tools in the earlier > versions of dracut [1]. Been there, done that. > > When using bash to wait for an interface to come up [2] or doing dhcp [3], the > (at least my) pain threshold is reached, and you want something more sophisticated. > > So, one starts eyeing NetworkManager or systemd-networkd. Both of them have CLI > tools and helpers and these tools and helpers talk to each other with (guess > what?) an IPC mechanism, which happens to be DBUS (because it's the IPC of > choice, if you don't want to reinvent the wheel). > > But let's not pinpoint that to network alone. Parsing output of tools with > shell scripts is horrible, slow, fragile, error prone.
So, you want to replace bash by dbus? I'll stop now with arguing. Let's agree to disagree.
> 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.
This is how UNIX works. ;)
Thanks, //richard
| |