Hi Jason, 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? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
