[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100119220303.6767a553@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:03:03 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:08:16 +0900
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> 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,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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