On 21.08.2009 05:38, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i dont think Karel's change makes any difference to the original intention.
> you're still transparently redirecting usleep() to nanosleep().
> -mike
So does an updated patch that implements usleep via nanosleep or uses
usleep if it exists stand a chance to get accepted? If so, how would you
want the situation to be solved, as you already stated a static usleep
could likely conflict with the one provided by POSIX. I still think a
macro would be fine.
--
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
