From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDEBA2C for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:59:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ua0-f193.google.com (mail-ua0-f193.google.com [209.85.217.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39C7A181 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:59:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f193.google.com with SMTP id 39so5141140uah.0 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 14:59:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1519332.ZM9tMjbubR@wuerfel> References: <1519332.ZM9tMjbubR@wuerfel> From: Tom Gundersen Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:58:41 +0200 Message-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Bus IPC List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Arnd, On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 12:24:03 AM CEST David Herrmann wrote: >> Tom Gundersen and I would like to propose a technical session on >> in-kernel IPC systems. For roughly half a year now we have been >> developing (with others) a capability-based [1] IPC system for linux, >> called bus1 [2]. We would like to present bus1, start a discussion on >> open problems, and talk about the possible path forward for an upstream >> inclusion. l...] > I'd like to join in discussing the user interface. The current version > seems (compared to kdbus) simple enough that we could consider using > syscalls instead of a miscdev. Yeah, using syscalls would probably make the most sense if and when we submit it upstream. The only reason we didn't so far was that it has been easier to develop it out-of-tree as a module. Cheers, Tom