Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

From: Austin S Hemmelgarn
Date: Wed Apr 15 2015 - 13:59:45 EST

On 2015-04-14 15:43, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 08:35:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:23:57PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

I agree. You've sent a pull request for an unfortunate design. I
don't think that unfortunate design belongs in the kernel. If it says
in userspace, then user programmers could potentially fix it some day.

You might not like the design, but it is a valid design. Again, we
don't refuse to support hardware that is designed badly. Or support
protocols we don't necessarily like, that's not the job of a kernel or
operating system.

And no, "the sole consumer of that API knows better, so bend over" is not
a good idea. We have shitloads of examples when single-consumer APIs
turned into screaming horrors; taking that in over the objections to API
design, merely on "they do it that way, who the hell we are to say they
are wrong?" is insane.

Again, in this domain, the design is sound. So much so that everyone
who works in that area moved toward it (KDE, Qt, Go, etc.) We might not
think it makes sense, and it did take me a while to wrap my head around
it, but to call it "crap" is unfair, sorry.

The reason that 'everyone who works in this area' adopted is not as much that the design is sound (I'm not arguing whether it is or isn't in this case) as it is that none of them could come up with anything better.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature