Re: [PATCH 32/40] async: introduce workqueue based alternative implementation

Tejun Heo
2010-01-18T08:45:09Z

On 01/18/2010 03:01 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I'm sorry but I'm really not happy with this conversion;
> it looses the very nice property of being able to execute and
> synchronize between places at the end just before device registration.

Hmm... can you elaborate a bit?

> I don't mind the implementation sharing thread pool with your stuff,
> but I really really want to keep the cookie and synchronization
> mechanism. There's a bunch of users of that pending and doing things
> sequential entirely just is not going to cut it.

For what async is currently used for, I don't think there will be any
noticeable difference. If the proposed implementation is lacking
somewhere, we can definitely improve it although I'm not sure whether
it will end up with the cookie thing.

Thanks.

--
tejun