Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:32:03 -0600 From: Eric van Gyzen <vangyzen@FreeBSD.org> To: Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: sem_timedwait3(..., ..., clockid_t) Message-ID: <f5088e4a-9cee-7562-7bc6-ab27b7e7c43c@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <58A563D7.3020102@embedded-brains.de> References: <1d1cb3d6-a2d2-1a3e-5d20-51206524ffbe@FreeBSD.org> <e0bc00fc-36f4-a81b-62fc-367931b3929c@FreeBSD.org> <CABh_MKkhBwerUpEKzgDs27_B5VNyvH9uhR-cOL4eF2rAof4foQ@mail.gmail.com> <58A563D7.3020102@embedded-brains.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/16/2017 02:33, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 16/02/17 07:47, Ed Schouten wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >> 2017-02-15 22:57 GMT+01:00 Eric van Gyzen <vangyzen@freebsd.org>: >>> int sem_timedwait3_np(sem_t *sem, const struct timespec *abs_timeout, >>> clockid_t clock_id); >> Could we please make the argument order a bit more consistent to >> clock_nanosleep() (i.e., putting the clockid_t in front of the >> timespec)? Should we also provide support for the TIMER_ABSTIME flag? >> > > Maybe it makes sense to talk also with the glibc and POSIX people > > http://www.opengroup.org/austin/ > http://austingroupbugs.net/main_page.php It certainly makes sense, at some point. I'll get some agreement within the FreeBSD community, then take it to glibc and then to POSIX. Thanks for the suggestions. Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f5088e4a-9cee-7562-7bc6-ab27b7e7c43c>