Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756210Ab0ATAbM (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:31:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753120Ab0ATAbL (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:31:11 -0500 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89]:24224 "EHLO fmsmga101.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751460Ab0ATAbK (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:31:10 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,306,1262592000"; d="scan'208";a="532706038" Message-ID: <4B564ECC.9080707@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:31:08 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, awalls@radix.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, cl@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, avi@redhat.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, andi@firstfloor.org, Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH 32/40] async: introduce workqueue based alternative implementation References: <1263776272-382-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1263776272-382-33-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20100117220130.214d56f1@linux.intel.com> <4B5420A3.3080200@kernel.org> <20100118072523.2683cd59@linux.intel.com> <4B55038D.3070106@kernel.org> <4B550384.8030103@linux.intel.com> <4B5565BE.4050406@kernel.org> <20100119063718.3f1f39cc@linux.intel.com> <4B564C23.1030708@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <4B564C23.1030708@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 827 Lines: 17 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 ;) 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") -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/