On Wed Nov 28 14:56:34 EST 2012, [email protected] wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:29:19 EST erik quanstrom <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > the only problem i see with just adding nsleep is it introduces a > > second time base, and potentially any time-based call (tsemacquire) > > would need to be doubled. i would prefer for the end state to be > > 1 user space time base. but the difficulty is getting there. at the > > least, the syscall# would change. > > If you want to maintain binary compatibility, new syscalls > would be needed. If you don't care, you can use wrapper > functions for lower precision calls. Evolution is messy.
just the #, not the name. - erik
