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

Tejun Heo
2010-01-20T02:03:24Z

Hello,

On 01/20/2010 09:31 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 1/19/2010 16:19, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>> Yeah, you can flush individual works from other works and wqs from
>> works running from different wqs. What's not allowed is flushing the
>> wq a work is running on from the work. Let's say if the flush code
>> can be modified to do so, would that change your opinion?
>
> once you get "run in parallel, but have an API to wait on everyone
> who was scheduled before me"... ... that'd be fine ;)

Cool, I'll give a shot at it then. I think it would be better to
adapt the existing interface to the new uses if at all possible.

> but then you pretty much HAVE the cookie API, even if you don't have
> an actual cookie. (just the cookie was an easy way to determine the
> "before me")

Yeap, but then again, whatever we do, all those synchronization
interfaces can be mapped onto each other eventually.

Thanks.

--
tejun