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

enh
2024-03-05T00:56:25Z

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 4:34 PM Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Elliott,
>
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 04:18:28PM -0800, enh wrote:
> > thanks! https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/bionic/+/2987070
> > changes to
> >
> > /**
> > * [clock_nanosleep(2)](http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/clock_nanosleep.2.html)
> > * sleeps for the given time (or until the given time if the TIMER_ABSTIME flag
> > * is used), as measured by the given clock.
> > *
> > * Returns 0 on success, and returns -1 and returns an error number on failure.
> > * If the sleep was interrupted by a signal, the return value will be `EINTR`
> > * and `remainder` will be the amount of time remaining.
> > */
> > int clock_nanosleep(clockid_t __clock, int __flags, const struct
> > timespec* _Nonnull __time, struct timespec* _Nullable __remainder);
>
> Hmmmm, that's the best name, meaningfully, I think. But I've been
> trying to avoid it. I don't like using names of standard functions in
> identifiers; it might confuse. As an alternative, I thought of 't'.
> What do you think?

as you can see, i've taken the "the leading `__` means we get to
trample whatever we like" approach :-)

(we build bionic with hidden visibility and an explicit list of
symbols for the linker to export, so we'd have to be trying quite hard
to trip over ourselves.)

> Have a lovely night!
>
> Alex
>
> --
> <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
> Looking for a remote C programming job at the moment.