From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug  2 14:20:51 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 1B8CA16A41F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:20:51 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D1743D49
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:20:50 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.4/8.13.4/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id j72EKnOo008400; 
	Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:20:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:20:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@haven.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <25578.1122991617@phk.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508021016430.5408-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
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
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
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 14:20:51 -0000

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> 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...

I just meant "remove the #includes of namespace.h an un-namespace.h"
from libc/gen/usleep.c.

-- 
DE