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

From: Arjan van de Ven
Date: Wed Jan 20 2010 - 01:03:17 EST

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:08:16 +0900
Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

and maybe we need to be smart about this;
for me, sharing the backend implementation (the pool part) makes sense,
although a thread pool really is not much code. But a smart thread pool
may be.

as for interfaces, I really really think it's ok to have different
interfaces for usecases that are very different, as long as the
interfaces are logical in their domain. I rather have 2 interfaces, each
logical to their domain, than a forced joined interface that doesn't
really naturally fit either.

Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
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