From owner-freebsd-current Sun May 3 23:38:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA01936 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 23:38:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from cimlogic.com.au (cimlog.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.51.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA01930 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 23:38:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jb@cimlogic.com.au) Received: (from jb@localhost) by cimlogic.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.7) id QAA17091 for current@freebsd.org; Mon, 4 May 1998 16:40:55 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from jb) From: John Birrell Message-Id: <199805040640.QAA17091@cimlogic.com.au> Subject: nanosleep time left To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:40:55 +1000 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG My understanding of nanosleep in the POSIX standard is that if the time remaining argument is non-NULL, then the time remaining is supposed to be returned, regardless of whether the call was interrupted by a signal or not. So when no signal interrupts the call and it just times out, I expect that the fields in the time remaining will be zeroed. It seems that the kernel implementation of nanosleep doesn't do this. Can anyone (a) confirm this interpretation; and (b) confirm the kernel behaviour? It looks broken to me. -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@freebsd.org http://www.cimlogic.com.au/ CIMlogic Pty Ltd, GPO Box 117A, Melbourne Vic 3001, Australia +61 418 353 137 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message