Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:52:01 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] compatibility syscall layer (lets try again) |
| |
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > I had been looking at 2.5.50, we had a different meaning of current. > If you are saying that for any implementation of nanosleep I have to implement > the -ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK thingy anyway, then I better start with it.
You don't _have_ to. An architecture for which restarting is just too painful can just always choose to return -EINTR, that should be ok. That's how nanosleep() used to work before - it may not be 100% SuS compliant, but it's not as if anybody really cares, I suspect.
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |