Tue Jan 21 15:58:00 GMT 2003
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 02:28:53PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
> Attached is a patch that implements nanosleep() by attempting to
> reuse the current sleep() implementation which seems to provide the
> necessary functionality.
> I'm not sure if there is a better way to convey the fact that
> sleep_worker() was interrupted than my current implementation.
> Comments on this issue and the patch in general are welcome.
I'm wondering if we could do without an extra function sleep_worker()
and let nanosleep() be the basic implementation. So sleep() as well
as usleep() could call nanosleep(). Isn't that done that way in the
Linux kernel, too?
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:email@example.com
Red Hat, Inc.
More information about the Cygwin-patches