From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from systemhalted (CPE0080c82c70ca.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [24.112.224.149]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C3A4829 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:26:46 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:26:52 -0500 From: Carlos O'Donell To: "b.gunreben" Cc: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] nanosleep Message-ID: <20021109192651.GC15380@systemhalted> References: <200211081116.gA8BGuX28978@mailgate5.cinetic.de> <20021108161225.GD2402@systemhalted> <3DCCC839.EFC91019@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3DCCC839.EFC91019@web.de> Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > > glibc 2.3.1 from debian CVS or upstream? > > This is upstream with hppa patches from the debian tree. That's currently broke, and I've been slotting in my time to fix this. Currently rebuilding glibc :} > The report was probably bad. In the mail thread I mentioned in my > previous mail, the nanosleep in the kernel was fixed because of > threading problems. If I understand it correctly, threading will always > have problems without a realy working nanosleep. Yes. You'll see it's use sprinkled in linuxthreads/* and in particular spinlock.c c.