Re: workqueue thing

Ingo Molnar
2009-12-23T08:03:12Z

* Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:

> > We really are not forced to the space of Gedankenexperiments here.
>
> Sure but there's a reason why I posted the patchset without the actual
> conversions. I wanted to make sure that it's not rejected on the ground of
> its basic design. I thought it was acceptable after the first RFC round but
> while trying to merge the scheduler part, Peter seemed mightily unhappy with
> the whole thing, so this second RFC round. So, if anyone has major issues
> with the basic design, please step forward *now* before I go spending more
> time working on it.

At least as far as i'm concerned, i'd like to see actual uses. It's a big
linecount increase all things considered:

20 files changed, 2783 insertions(+), 660 deletions(-)

and you say it _wont_ help performance/scalability (this aspect wasnt clear to
me from previous discussions), so the (yet to be seen) complexity reduction in
other code ought to be worth it.

Ingo