Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:20:49 -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.4.43.0508021016430.5408-100000@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <25578.1122991617@phk.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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... I just meant "remove the #includes of namespace.h an un-namespace.h" from libc/gen/usleep.c. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.43.0508021016430.5408-100000>