Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:17:22 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ? Message-ID: <25679.1122992242@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?25679.1122992242>