From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Mierswa Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 05:35:24 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use nanosleep() instead of usleep() Message-Id: <4A8B8F1C.90002@impulze.org> List-Id: References: <4A896729.3010302@impulze.org> In-Reply-To: <4A896729.3010302@impulze.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On 19.08.2009 04:17, Kay Sievers wrote: > What's the point doing that wrapping? Will usleep() ever be removed from 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? -- Mierswa, Daniel If you still don't like it, that's ok: that's why I'm boss. I simply know better than you do. --- Linus Torvalds, comp.os.linux.advocacy, 1996/07/22