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

[Daniel Eischen]

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).

-- 
DE