[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B56BDBB.9060200@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:24:27 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
CC: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, avi@...hat.com, johannes@...solutions.net,
andi@...stfloor.org, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists