Tue Jan 21 16:00:00 GMT 2003
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 04:58:42PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>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?
In that case, nanosleep needs to be rewritten to deal with the same
issues as sleep().
More information about the Cygwin-patches