Michael Barabanov wrote:
>
> Stuart Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > IMHO, it would be better to stick with standard POSIX and use POSIX
> > clocks for timing. If this is too painful to users or people do not
> > want to use POSIX, the original NMT/RTAI API provides a simple
> > alternative.
>
> I really don't see any difference between rt_task_suspend and pthread_suspend_np.
> You can
> #define rtl_suspend_np pthread_suspend_np
> if it seems better
>
> clock_gettime is supported in rtlinux2.0.
>
> Michael.
Hi Michael
Yes, that's what I do, and the point I was trying to make is that given
that pthread_suspend_np takes no arguments, I can't see any reason to
rename the original rtl_task_suspend function. I guess from the point
of view of making the naming look consistent it is fair enough, so as
long as people understant the _np issue.
Regards, Stuart
--- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/~rtlinux/
