Corinna, Chris, Thanks for your feedback.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 05:17:06PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 11:02:01AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 04:58:42PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >I'm wondering if we could do without an extra function > > >sleep_worker() and let nanosleep() be the basic implementation. So > > >sleep() as well as usleep() could call nanosleep(). Isn't that > > >done that way in the Linux kernel, too? > > > > In that case, nanosleep needs to be rewritten to deal with the same > > issues as sleep(). > > Sure. nanosleep would be sleep_worker with timespec arguments. OK, I will rework the patch as specified above. Regarding usleep(), I was afraid to change it to use nanosleep() (aka sleep_worker()) because its implementation was different than sleep(). Additionally, its current behavior does not seem to agree with what is documented in "man 3 usleep" under Red Hat Linux 8.0. Should I include a reworked usleep() in the next version of this patch? Thanks, Jason -- PGP/GPG Key: http://www.tishler.net/jason/pubkey.asc or key servers Fingerprint: 7A73 1405 7F2B E669 C19D 8784 1AFD E4CC ECF4 8EF6