Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:43:21 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be CLOCK_REALTIME? |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >> Is there a reason to use CLOCK_MONOTONIC, instead of CLOCK_REALTIME? Is it > >> intentional? If yes, then I should document this in the man-pages. If not, > >> then it should be fixed. > > > > CLOCK_MONOTONIC works fine even if ntpd steps the clock forward or > > backward, CLOCK_REALTIME not. So the man page should be fixed. > > Thanks for your reply, but I'm not quite convinced yet. The things > is: the Solaris man page also says "CLOCK_REALTIME". (Of course that > man page may just be parroting the standard.) Could there not be some > reasonable semantics for a nanosleep() that was based on > CLOCK_REALTIME?
CLOCK_MONOTONIC is optional, that's probably the reason it's not mentioned there. If you check the man page for clock_settime, it specifically mentions that pending relative timer (including nanosleep) aren't affected by the changed time, thus if CLOCK_MONOTONIC and CLOCK_REALTIME advance equally, it doesn't matter which you use for relative timer.
bye, Roman
| |