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

Alejandro Colomar
2024-03-03T12:55:43Z

[-- 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.