On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:05:26 +0100 Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Surely the thread should die again boot up? On module load > synchronisity is usually not a problem. sadly that's not correct in practice based on the fast boot work we've done. > > Personally I think it would be better to make this more generic. > Various subsystems have thread pool implementations now, sort of kinda. If a good one appears I'd be happy to build on top of that, assuming it's generic enough. > and this > is just another variant that except for the sequence stuff > isn't all that much different. So it would be better to have > a generic worker thread manager that just supports these > barriers too. ... or maybe think about seeing this system as exactly that thread manager? -- 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-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
