From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 12 15:16:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA25106 for current-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lsd.relcom.eu.net (ache@lsd.relcom.eu.net [193.124.23.23]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA25082 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from ache@localhost) by lsd.relcom.eu.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA00887; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 02:14:43 +0400 (MSD) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 02:14:42 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= X-Sender: ache@lsd.relcom.eu.net To: Terry Lambert cc: sos@sos.freebsd.dk, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: siginterrupt (was Re: Error in sleep !) In-Reply-To: <199708122200.PAA07903@phaeton.artisoft.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > The claim is that FreeBSD defaults have been brought into concordance > with POSIX. And the man pages have not been updated. What POSIX says exactly about siginterrupt(3) and restartable syscalls? I can't check this section right now... > To the original poster: > > The system call restart of a sleep(3) does *not* guarantee that the > elapsed time is subtracted from the argument when the restart is > initiated (ie: if you sleep for 2 of 3 seconds, get a signal, and > restart, the restart will likely be for another 3 seconds -- not > the remaining 1). So depending on this behaviour is probably an > error, in any case. I still not understand why you decide to connect restartable syscalls with sleep(3) implementation. Both old and new sleep(3) variants not depends on restartable syscalls. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/