Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:43:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:43:30 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:44561 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:43:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:52:01 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Martin Schwidefsky cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , george anzinger , Jim Houston , Stephen Rothwell , LKML , , "David S. Miller" , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] compatibility syscall layer (lets try again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 799 Lines: 20 On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > I had been looking at 2.5.50, we had a different meaning of current. > If you are saying that for any implementation of nanosleep I have to implement > the -ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK thingy anyway, then I better start with it. You don't _have_ to. An architecture for which restarting is just too painful can just always choose to return -EINTR, that should be ok. That's how nanosleep() used to work before - it may not be 100% SuS compliant, but it's not as if anybody really cares, I suspect. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/