Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, george anzinger wrote:
> >
> > I think this covers all the bases.  It builds boots and
> > runs.  I haven't tested nano_sleep to see if it does the
> > right thing yet...
> 
> Well, it definitely doesn't, since at least this test is the wrong way
> around (as well as being against the coding style whitespace rules ;-p):
> 
> +       if ( ! current_thread_info()->restart_block.fun){
> +               return current_thread_info()->restart_block.fun(&parm);
> 
> Also, I would suggest against having a NULL pointer, and instead just
> initializing it with a function that sets it to an error return (don't use
> ENOSYS, since the system call _does_ exist, and ENOSYS is what old kernels
> would return if you do it by hand by mistake. I'd suggest -EINTR, since
> that will "DoTheRightThing(tm)" if we somehow get confused).
> 
>                 Linus
Ok, all the changes are in this version.  It build, runs AND
passes my clock_nanosleep test (when combined with the posix
timers patch).  I "annoy" the sleep with SIGSTOP and friends
and test the times against expected.

-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers: 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml