On 20.08.2009 16:14, Karel Zak wrote:
> I've committed the patch below. The patch uses usleep(1) rather than
> nanosleep() with 1 nanosecond. It would be better to remove the sleep
> at all, but I don't have Amiga with A2000 RTCs to test that the
> workaround is unnecessary...
Heh my initial patch wanted to _remove_ usleep, not use it. :-)
Shall i re-send a patch that converts the usleep() calls to nanosleep()
or am I a lost cause now?
--
Mierswa, Daniel
If you still don't like it, that's ok: that's why I'm boss. I simply
know better than you do.
--- Linus Torvalds, comp.os.linux.advocacy, 1996/07/22
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
