pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ?

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk_at_phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:26:54 +0200

Since sleep() is a cancellation point, shouldn't nanosleep() be as well ?

(this would also cover usleep())

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_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.

Received on Tue Aug 02 2005 - 07:26:56 UTC

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Chris Hodgins: "wpa_supplicant support for EAP_TTLS and wired drivers"
Previous message: Justin Finkelstein: "RE: Hot-swap SATA and atacontrol"
Next in thread: Daniel Eischen: "Re: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ?"
Reply: Daniel Eischen: "Re: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ?"
Maybe reply: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ?"
Maybe reply: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ?"
Maybe reply: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:40 UTC