From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott James Remnant <scott@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:41:49 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use nanosleep() instead of usleep()
Message-Id: <1251132109.4175.33.camel@quest>
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-F3577bJqS27OihcpULHJ"
List-Id: <linux-hotplug.vger.kernel.org>
References: <4A896729.3010302@impulze.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A896729.3010302@impulze.org>
To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org


--=-F3577bJqS27OihcpULHJ
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 07:35 +0200, Daniel Mierswa wrote:

> On 19.08.2009 04:17, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > What's the point doing that wrapping? Will usleep() ever be removed fro=
m glibc?
> Well POSIX.1-2008 removes the specification and if you disable
> UCLIBC_SUSV3_LEGACY in uClibc (which is default) you will get undefined
> references. I don't think it's too big of a problem to replace it for
> the cases where the C library doesn't offer it, is it?
>=20
Why not just use nanosleep() unconditionally?

Scott
--=20
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com

--=-F3577bJqS27OihcpULHJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkqSws0ACgkQSnQiFMl4yK4YOwCgp4S2871tVdb+BAbLGFz2gYdq
IuIAoJ16/jMCJOecQXZZa2muY2E8sR9A
=4Z8w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-F3577bJqS27OihcpULHJ--