From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug  2 09:26:56 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 A155216A41F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2005 09:26:56 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from haven.freebsd.dk (haven.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5024743D48
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2005 09:26:56 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by haven.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id E316EBC66
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2005 09:26:54 +0000 (UTC)
To: current@freebsd.org
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:26:54 +0200
Message-ID: <21362.1122974814@phk.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@phk.freebsd.dk
Cc: 
Subject: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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 09:26:56 -0000


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.