[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:0.021 / U:24.244 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site