From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waldemar Brodkorb Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 21:08:29 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] nilfs-utils: need NPTL threads In-Reply-To: <20180105052334.mc3fabifliw7gzqn@tarshish> References: <1515060652-22472-1-git-send-email-dev.kurt@vandijck-laurijssen.be> <20180104101927.oexxtwusya3wppyk@tarshish> <20180104113336.6b7ed00a@windsurf.lan> <20180104105154.l24rvscxbsliquv3@tarshish> <20180104112815.GD18339@airbook.vandijck-laurijssen.be> <20180104155213.GC3684@scaer> <20180104172352.k6u2i3bkfmovgwgm@tarshish> <20180104201958.GB5130@waldemar-brodkorb.de> <20180105052334.mc3fabifliw7gzqn@tarshish> Message-ID: <20180107200829.GA30596@waldemar-brodkorb.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Baruch, Baruch Siach wrote, > The UCLIBC_HAS_ADVANCED_REALTIME help text says that this options enables > clock_nanosleep(). But with current code you must have NPTL enabled for > clock_nanosleep(). So the help text is not correct. > > This also means that architectures lack NPTL support can't have > clock_nanosleep() at all. Is there a reason for that? You are right. It seems there is no reason for it. clock_nanosleep is internally using a syscall. I prepared attached patch and running the regression tests. Do you like to test or review? I cleaned up old code, which might be only required for Linux kernels older than 2.6.0, which I do not going to support anyway. best regards Waldemar -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0006-rt-cleanup-and-allow-to-build-for-linuxthreads.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 11284 bytes Desc: not available URL: