On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 05:32:58AM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
> again (no work can be enqueued if already in the queue). But I don't
> see how "remember the last work enqueued and wait for it to be done
> before destroying" is more versatile than "waiting for all to be done
> before destroying". It certainly seems that the latter is a simpler
> approach.
The function is more versatile as it allows other uses than preparing
the queue destruction.
It would be much easier, if the work item had a state field....
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@serpens.de
"A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
