pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ?
deischen at freebsd.org
Tue Aug 2 14:20:51 GMT 2005
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508020954480.5408-100000 at sea.ntplx.net>, Daniel Eisc
> hen writes:
> >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).
> 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...
I just meant "remove the #includes of namespace.h an un-namespace.h"
More information about the freebsd-current