Hello, Linus. 11/18/2009 12:05 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> Do you think that usage is wide-spread? Implementing strict ordering >> shouldn't be too difficult but I can't help but feeling that such >> assumption is abuse of implementation detail. > > I think it would be good if it were more than an implementation detail, > and was something documented and known. > > The less random and timing-dependent our interfaces are, the better off we > are. Guaranteeing that a single-threaded workqueue is done in order seems > to me to be a GoodThing(tm), regardless of whether much code depends on > it. > > Of course, if there is some fundamental reason why it wouldn't be the > case, that's another thing. But if you think uit should be easy, and since > there _are_ users, then it shouldn't be seen as an "implementation > detail". It's a feature. I might have been too early with the 'easy' part but I definitely can give it a shot. What do you think about the scheduler notifier implementation? It seems we'll end up with three callbacks. It can either be three hlist_heads in the struct_task linking each ops or single hilst_head links ops tables (like the current preempt notifiers). Which one should I go with? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
