This whole pulling crap out of the Linux kernel mailing list is doing the industry a disservice.
The worst part is that I sorta understand why some low-rent blogo-journolist pulls that nonsense. Hacker News should be better than this.
A juicy pullquote can be an attractive headline and cheap and easy to write article. Start with a basic technical introduction paraphrasing wikipedia but doesn't get the reader anywhere near ready to understand the LKML post. Then pad out the rest with some hemming and hawing about: Has Linus gone TOO FAR!?
On HN, these kind of submissions are just as trashy, but because they point directly to LKML we can be fooled into thinking to be something loftier.
It should be called "kdbus patch review: dbus performance overhead may be in userspace library, not context switching." But nobody would submit that because it's not catchy. I'd still click that link, but the title would be boring and technical, just like the post it links to is. I actually flagged the other front page LKML post "Big-Endian is effectively dead."
"On HN, these kind of submissions are just as trashy, but because they point directly to LKML we can be fooled into thinking to be something loftier."
No, it's because of the cognitive dissonance in play on HN. It's a fucking news-re-blog, for crying out loud, but because of the stated goals[0] of the site there's some idea that we're rising above the trash and nonsense of sites like Slashdot.
Don't get me wrong; articles get posted here before they get reposted on Slashdot or The Register etc., but that's all there is to HN. It's not a better place for discussion than either of those two sites.
Or really, it isn't "context switching"; it's that there's the bus daemon in the middle which multiplies the userspace library overhead by 2, since messages are read and written twice as many times if you have the daemon in the middle.
Speeding up read/parse and marshal/write is completely separable from doing fewer read/parse marshal/write operations. Two different performance issues that aren't related as far as I can tell.
Sure, but you don't need to defend dbus in this branch of the thread. I'm showing the difference in kind from "DBus is seriously screwed up." I knew my title wasn't great but in the context of that comparison, my proposed title and yours are effectively the same.
The worst part is that I sorta understand why some low-rent blogo-journolist pulls that nonsense. Hacker News should be better than this.
A juicy pullquote can be an attractive headline and cheap and easy to write article. Start with a basic technical introduction paraphrasing wikipedia but doesn't get the reader anywhere near ready to understand the LKML post. Then pad out the rest with some hemming and hawing about: Has Linus gone TOO FAR!?
On HN, these kind of submissions are just as trashy, but because they point directly to LKML we can be fooled into thinking to be something loftier.
It should be called "kdbus patch review: dbus performance overhead may be in userspace library, not context switching." But nobody would submit that because it's not catchy. I'd still click that link, but the title would be boring and technical, just like the post it links to is. I actually flagged the other front page LKML post "Big-Endian is effectively dead."