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

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Wed Jan 20 2010 - 03:20:24 EST


On 01/20/2010 03:03 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> Yeap, but then again, whatever we do, all those synchronization
>> interfaces can be mapped onto each other eventually.

Eh... gave it a shot and it was too complex.

> 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.

I'll just replace the backend worker pool for now. If necessary, we
can try to unify the sync model later, I suppose.


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