Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:26:54 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ? Message-ID: <21362.1122974814@phk.freebsd.dk>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
Since sleep() is a cancellation point, shouldn't nanosleep() be as well ? (this would also cover usleep()) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@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.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21362.1122974814>