On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 04:58:42PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >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?
In that case, nanosleep needs to be rewritten to deal with the same issues as sleep(). cgf
