[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be CLOCK_REALTIME?

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:

> >> Is there a reason to use CLOCK_MONOTONIC, instead of CLOCK_REALTIME? Is it
> >> intentional? If yes, then I should document this in the man-pages. If not,
> >> then it should be fixed.
> >
> > CLOCK_MONOTONIC works fine even if ntpd steps the clock forward or
> > backward, CLOCK_REALTIME not. So the man page should be fixed.
> Thanks for your reply, but I'm not quite convinced yet. The things
> is: the Solaris man page also says "CLOCK_REALTIME". (Of course that
> man page may just be parroting the standard.) Could there not be some
> reasonable semantics for a nanosleep() that was based on

CLOCK_MONOTONIC is optional, that's probably the reason it's not mentioned
there. If you check the man page for clock_settime, it specifically
mentions that pending relative timer (including nanosleep) aren't affected
by the changed time, thus if CLOCK_MONOTONIC and CLOCK_REALTIME advance
equally, it doesn't matter which you use for relative timer.

bye, Roman

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-23 14:47    [W:0.161 / U:0.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site