Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752575Ab0ATGDI (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:03:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751721Ab0ATGDH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:03:07 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:42444 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751250Ab0ATGDG (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:03:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:03:03 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven 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 Message-ID: <20100119220303.6767a553@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4B566590.5030804@kernel.org> 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> <4B564ECC.9080707@linux.intel.com> <4B566590.5030804@kernel.org> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.3 (GTK+ 2.16.6; i586-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1086 Lines: 30 On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:08:16 +0900 Tejun Heo 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 -- 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/