On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:25:14 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:10:41 -0800 Arjan van de Ven > <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > kernel/async.c | 307 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Am still wondering if this is unacceptably duplicative of dhowells's > slow-work infrastructure: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/20/193 > > I talked to David about this today (as I wrote in 0/6). Based on that discussion we got to the conclusion we have incompatible requirements. He needs priorities to be honored (which means rather out of order execution of the tasks) while I need strict ordering (for the synchronization). While it's not entirely impossible to combine those two into one system, the resulting complexity isn't really worth it yet. Of the 307 lines, only 100 are actual thread pool code (the rest is synchronization and admin code), and about half of those 100 lines are comments. -- 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
