> On 11/17/05, Dag Nygren <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The man page for nanosleep saya that times under 2 us are implemented
> > by a busywait and this is why I expected it to work.
>
> Update your manpages. You're depending on 2.4 behavior in a 2.6 kernel.
You are right. The system is one I have upgraded piece by piece and the
manpages
weren't upgraded.
But what is the point of having a nanosleep() in that case when you could do
just fine with usleep() ?
> > OK, in that case the manpage should be changed. And an alternative
> > has to be worked out by me ;-).
>
> My man-pages are quite clear on what nanosleep() does. Nothing needs
> to be changed there.
>
> Alternative wise, I'm not sure, but you might want to look into the
> HRT stuff that's going on in Ingo's -RT tree. I don't know if / what
> changes have been made to sys_nanosleep(), but low-latency is most
> likely to occur there.
I will look into that.
Quite annoying that software that worked just fine in 2.4 doesn't
work in 2.6.
What does POSIX say about nanosleep()?
Dag
-
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/
[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]
