Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:06:57 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ? Message-ID: <25578.1122991617@phk.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:02:36 EDT." <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508020954480.5408-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508020954480.5408-100000@sea.ntplx.net>, Daniel Eisc hen writes: >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). Right I was surprised that usleep() wasn't a cancellation point, I'm not sure I have a drivers license good for the namespace stuff... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?25578.1122991617>