Re: [PATCH] compatibility syscall layer (lets try again)

[Martin Schwidefsky]

> You're not looking at a recent 2.5.x tree with the nanosleep() restart
> logic.
I had been looking at 2.5.50, we had a different meaning of current.
If you are saying that for any implementation of nanosleep I have to implement
the -ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK thingy anyway, then I better start with it.

blue skies,
   Martin

Linux/390 Design & Development, IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
Schönaicherstr. 220, D-71032 Böblingen, Telefon: 49 - (0)7031 - 16-2247
E-Mail: [e-mail]