![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [W:0.220 / U:0.510 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||