pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ?
deischen at freebsd.org
Tue Aug 2 14:02:39 GMT 2005
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
> (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).
More information about the freebsd-current