From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug  2 14:02:39 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DB216A41F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:02:39 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87BBA43D46
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:02:38 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.4/8.13.4/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id j72E2aUX019771; 
	Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:02:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:02:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@haven.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <21362.1122974814@phk.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508020954480.5408-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:02:39 -0000

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