On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 11:02:01AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 04:58:42PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >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().
Sure. nanosleep would be sleep_worker with timespec arguments. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
