From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug  2 14:17:24 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 C5B4516A41F;
	Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:17:24 +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 6E71D43D46;
	Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:17:24 +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 2F27DBC66;
	Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:17:23 +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 10:10:14 EDT."
	<Pine.GSO.4.43.0508021007350.5408-100000@sea.ntplx.net> 
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:17:22 +0200
Message-ID: <25679.1122992242@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 14:17:24 -0000

In message <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508021007350.5408-100000@sea.ntplx.net>, Daniel Eisc
hen writes:

>Hmm, the same could be said for sleep() in libc also, but we jump
>through hoops to allow the thread libraries override sleep() with
>their own cancellable version.  I think this is in case libc wants
>to use sleep(), usleep(), nanosleep() internally and not introduce
>cancellation points into functions that shouldn't have them.

usleep() calls _nanosleep() but I wonder if it shouldn't be
redirected into the thead libraraies like sleep/nanosleep ?

-- 
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.