[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 32/40] async: introduce workqueue based alternative implementation

    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.



     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-20 09:23    [W:0.021 / U:1.740 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site