On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 05:01:34PM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi Arjan. > > Great work, and valuable too. I'm just wondering if the header file name > "async.h" is a little too generic? Something like async_init.h perhaps? > > Regards, > > Nigel > Hi Nigel, That's what I thought too at first. But I guess there could be other users of these async functions than the initcalls. It looks like out of order workqueues that can synchronize themselves. It seems a bit more costly than workqueues (since the concept comes along a loop of creation/destroying of several threads) but more efficient for the same reason as the number of active threads adapts to the number of CPU and jobs to perform. The purpose is not the same. But I guess it's more reliable than workqueues for pathes that require mutiple parallel jobs which need to locally synchronize on critical pathes. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
