From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:46:39 -0500 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <0263c93c2d57900638e664f1b538a76d@brasstown.quanstro.net> <0cf8de222eb5fa81721e8bcf4dd4e875@brasstown.quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] sleep(2) historical question Topicbox-Message-UUID: eb770df0-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed Nov 28 09:36:36 EST 2012, charles.forsyth@gmail.com wrote: > Because they claim to be providing a service that's not actually being provided. > > On 28 November 2012 13:30, erik quanstrom wrote: > > why do extra zeros on the right bother you? sleep(2) says. DESCRIPTION Sleep suspends the current process for the number of mil- liseconds specified by the argument. The actual suspension time may be a little more or less than the requested time. from experience, i've found that stock 386 kernels on older hardware yield a sleep resolution of 10ms or more. so clearly the argument to sleep is not directly tied to the resolution of the clock. and i think tying the two together would invent a new requirement and assume too much on the hardware. - erik