[Nut-upsdev] patch: Replace many usleep and some sleep calls with nanosleep

[Arnaud Quette]

Hi Regid,

2011/10/3 Stuart D Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>:
> On 10/03/2011 01:02 PM, Regid Ichira wrote:
>> -             usleep(250000);
>> +             struct timespec delay = {0, 250e6}; nanosleep(&delay, NULL);
>>
> Would it be better to define a local version of usleep in terms of
> nanosleep?  I suspect the library version already does that, but if the
> library version is going away, a local version is much more concise and
> readable than calling nanosleep directly.  If there are concerns about
> linking, the local version could be, e.g, u_sleep, since all the calls
> are getting touched anyway.

sorry, but Stuart is right.
I should have replied to your other (well, this one) report on this.
Using AC_REPLACE_FUNCS(... usleep ...) in configure.in and providing a
common/usleep.c->usleep() replacement implementation, in case the
system doesn't provide it, is a better way to go. At least for now.
That way, we avoid regression, while supporting systems that do not
provide usleep.

thanks for your appreciated work Regid!

cheers,
Arnaud