Re: xnanosleep range with 64 bit time_t

[Frank v Waveren]

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 02:14:13PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Yeah, I was being lazy. There seems to be a little trouble with the
> > sleep-as-long-as-we-can patch anyway, I'll see if this isn't too tricky
> > to hack up and try submitting it.
> Thanks.  Please let us know how it turns out; if nanosleep can fail
> with EOVERFLOW we'll have to recode things again to work around that
> problem.  (I hope it doesn't come to that....)
Hmm, they've fixed the problem the the capping-the-sleep-time patch,
and Thomas Gleixner doesn't seem very eager to accept the patch (not
big on solutions to "academic" problems apparantly). I'll CC you on
the thread, but suspect you're best of just waiting a little and
seeing what ends up in Linus's tree. 

-- 
Frank v Waveren                                  Key fingerprint: BDD7 D61E
address@hidden                                              5D39 CF05 4BFC F57A
Public key: hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net/468D62C8              FA00 7D51 468D 62C8

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature