Re: [PATCH 32/40] async: introduce workqueue based alternative implementation

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Tue Jan 19 2010 - 21:08:41 EST


On 01/20/2010 09:31 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 1/19/2010 16:19, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Yeah, you can flush individual works from other works and wqs from
>> works running from different wqs. What's not allowed is flushing the
>> wq a work is running on from the work. Let's say if the flush code
>> can be modified to do so, would that change your opinion?
> once you get "run in parallel, but have an API to wait on everyone
> who was scheduled before me"... ... that'd be fine ;)

Cool, I'll give a shot at it then. I think it would be better to
adapt the existing interface to the new uses if at all possible.

> but then you pretty much HAVE the cookie API, even if you don't have
> an actual cookie. (just the cookie was an easy way to determine the
> "before me")

Yeap, but then again, whatever we do, all those synchronization
interfaces can be mapped onto each other eventually.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at