Tue Jan 21 16:17:00 GMT 2003
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 11:02:01AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 04:58:42PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >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().
Sure. nanosleep would be sleep_worker with timespec arguments.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:email@example.com
Red Hat, Inc.
More information about the Cygwin-patches