From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug  2 14:06:59 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 B6D2B16A41F;
	Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:06:59 +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 5E34543D48;
	Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:06:59 +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 8F3CABC69;
	Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:06:57 +0000 (UTC)
To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:02:36 EDT."
	<Pine.GSO.4.43.0508020954480.5408-100000@sea.ntplx.net> 
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:06:57 +0200
Message-ID: <25578.1122991617@phk.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@phk.freebsd.dk
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
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 14:06:59 -0000

In message <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508020954480.5408-100000@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...


-- 
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.