[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 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:08:16 +0900
Tejun Heo <> 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,

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-20 07:05    [W:0.201 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site