Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:24:27 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 32/40] async: introduce workqueue based alternative implementation |
| |
Hello,
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.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |