From: Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>
To: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
Cc: Elliott Hughes <enh@google.com>,
Stefan Puiu <stefan.puiu@gmail.com>,
linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clock_nanosleep.2, nanosleep.2: Use 'duration' rather than 'request'
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:45:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5882437.otsE0voPBg@nimes> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240303121454.16994-3-alx@kernel.org>
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"?
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".
Bruno
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-03 13:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <ZUIlirG-ypudgpbK@debian>
2024-03-03 12:15 ` [PATCH 0/2] Use terms consistently in function parameter names Alejandro Colomar
2024-03-03 12:15 ` [PATCH 1/2] man*/: epoll_*(), fcntl(), flock(), ioctl(), msgctl(), *prctl(), ptrace(), quotactl(), reboot(), semctl(), shmctl(), lockf(): Consistently use 'op' and 'operation' Alejandro Colomar
2024-03-05 18:12 ` Alejandro Colomar
2024-03-05 19:19 ` enh
2024-03-03 12:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] clock_nanosleep.2, nanosleep.2: Use 'duration' rather than 'request' Alejandro Colomar
2024-03-03 12:45 ` Bruno Haible [this message]
2024-03-03 12:55 ` Alejandro Colomar
2024-03-03 13:02 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] " Alejandro Colomar
2024-03-05 0:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] clock_nanosleep.2, " enh
2024-03-05 0:34 ` Alejandro Colomar
2024-03-05 0:56 ` enh
2024-03-05 1:11 ` Alejandro Colomar
2024-03-05 22:22 ` enh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5882437.otsE0voPBg@nimes \
--to=bruno@clisp.org \
--cc=alx@kernel.org \
--cc=enh@google.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stefan.puiu@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).