Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:02:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@haven.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508020954480.5408-100000@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <21362.1122974814@phk.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > Since sleep() is a cancellation point, shouldn't nanosleep() be as well ? nanosleep() is a cancellation point. At least, that's the way it's coded and should work. Note that _nanosleep() isn't. By design, if libc is using _nanosleep() in places, then that wouldn't cause a cancellation point. > (this would also cover usleep()) Hmm, is your real complaint that usleep() is not a cancellation point? usleep() should be a cancellation point, so you can fix it if you want (s/_nano/nano/ and remove the namespace stuff). -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.43.0508020954480.5408-100000>