Re: [PATCH 2/2] clock_nanosleep.2, nanosleep.2: Use 'duration' rather than 'request'

[Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1574 bytes --]

Hi Bruno,

On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> >  man2/clock_nanosleep.2 | 20 ++++++++++----------
> >  man2/nanosleep.2       | 12 ++++++------
> 
> The change to nanosleep.2 seems mostly fine. Except that the
> term "requested relative duration" (line 142) raises questions;
> what about changing that to "requested duration"?

Yeah, I had doubts about that one.  Probably I should drop 'relative'.

> 
> The change to clock_nanosleep.2 seems wrong. There are two cases
> (quoting the old text):
> 
>        If flags is 0, then the value specified in request is interpreted
>        as an interval relative to the  current  value  of  the  clock
>        specified by clockid.
> 
>        If  flags  is  TIMER_ABSTIME,  then request is interpreted as an
>        absolute time as measured by the clock, clockid.  If request is
>        less than or equal to the current value of the clock, then
>        clock_nanosleep() returns immediately without suspending the  calling
>        thread.
> 
> In the first case, the argument is a duration. In the second case, the
> argument is an absolute time point; it would be wrong and very confusing
> to denote it as "duration".

Hmm, thanks!  I guess we'll have to keep 'request' in clock_nanosleep(3)
unless someone comes up with a better name.  Elliott, you may want to
partially revert that change in bionic.

Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Looking for a remote C programming job at the moment.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]