Re: [PATCH] compatibility syscall layer (lets try again)

From: Linus Torvalds (
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 13:52:01 EST

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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 15 2002 - 22:00:15 EST