Re: workqueue thing

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* 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