pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ?
phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Tue Aug 2 14:06:59 GMT 2005
In message <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508020954480.5408-100000 at sea.ntplx.net>, Daniel Eisc
>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).
Right I was surprised that usleep() wasn't a cancellation point,
I'm not sure I have a drivers license good for the namespace stuff...
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.
More information about the freebsd-current