From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fastboot revisited: Asynchronous function calls Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:18:25 +1100 Message-ID: <1231154305.8179.148.camel@nigel-laptop> References: <20090104092430.7ffd2c41@infradead.org> <1231135294.8179.45.camel@nigel-laptop> <20090105025300.3afbec23@infradead.org> Reply-To: ncunningham-lkml@crca.org.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090105025300.3afbec23@infradead.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, fweisbec@gmail.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hi. On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 02:53 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:01:34 +1100 > Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > Hi Arjan. > > > > Great work, and valuable too. I'm just wondering if the header file > > name "async.h" is a little too generic? Something like async_init.h > > perhaps? > > > > while the users I have in mind are during init, the concept and > infrastructure of asynchronous function calls is by no means limited to > that use case... I hope there are many other uses for this :) Okee doke. How about async_fn or something like that then? It's just that there's async I/O and no doubt other async stuff I haven't thought of. Still, it's a relatively minor point. Night! Nigel