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

Arjan van de Ven
2010-01-20T06:03:08Z

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:08:16 +0900
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.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