Re: [RFC][PATCH] new timeofday-based soft-timer subsystem

Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:

but then there is another issue: the restart_block used by
sys_nanosleep() only allows for 4 unsigned long arguments, when, in
fact, nanoseconds are a 64-bit quantity in the kernel. As long as the
nanosleep() request is no more than around 4 seconds, we should be ok
using unsigned longs.

My man page for nanosleep specifies that the "nanoseconds" portion of the timespec must be under 1 billion and is of type "long". Is that no longer valid?

Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH] new timeofday-based soft-timer subsystem
    • From: Nish Aravamudan <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [RFC][PATCH (1/4)] new timeofday core subsystem (v A4)
    • From: john stultz <[email protected]>
  • [RFC][PATCH] new timeofday-based soft-timer subsystem
    • From: Nishanth Aravamudan <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH] new timeofday-based soft-timer subsystem
    • From: Nishanth Aravamudan <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.12-rc3 OOPS in vanilla source (once more)
• Next by Date: Re: clock drift with two Promise Ultra133 TX2 (PDC 20269) cards
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] new timeofday-based soft-timer subsystem
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] new timeofday-based soft-timer subsystem
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]