Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:08:16 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 32/40] async: introduce workqueue based alternative implementation |
| |
Hello,
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.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |