From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:29:19 EST."
	<af511777e3d6f6c786784efc43886515@ladd.quanstro.net>
References: <e18b59836e3c4fc17ff01b960f064732@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<CAOw7k5hWjT47JCkqAEoqXNa7tkEhkMe-72yJt4HjSr1KfTMuXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<0263c93c2d57900638e664f1b538a76d@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<CAOw7k5gk+KkeK_B1P-RtXJh+tPeKFnbyCTUb296-OY93-_-kKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0cf8de222eb5fa81721e8bcf4dd4e875@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<20121128185827.863CFB827@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<af511777e3d6f6c786784efc43886515@ladd.quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:54:32 -0800
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
Message-Id: <20121128195432.E430BB827@mail.bitblocks.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] sleep(2) historical question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ec1e966a-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:29:19 EST erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>  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.