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.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
