[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [19]   [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 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.



     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-20 03:07    [W:0.021 / U:37.360 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site