🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:
> crobato@kuentos.guam.net (Christopher Robato) wrote:

[stuff deleted to please the newsserver]
> 
> If this is the reason then some system designer must have their head
> wedged.  Wouldn't it be obvious to continue providing for the app's
> volunary giving up time?  This is certainly what I'm used to from an OS --
> if it isn't true in Unix I may find myself doing some Linux kernel hacking
> sooner than I expected.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe a call to sleep with a value of 0 seconds
will set an alarm for 0 seconds, and continue execution.  The side effect
being that the process yields the remainder of its current timeslice.
Someone please feel free to correct or support this.

> 
> (Also, it would a bit of a kludge but it would be easy to fake giving
> the app uninterrupted access to a system struct.)

Yes, but what kind of Mac icon could you use to represent the /proc filesystem?

> 
> -- 
> Sphere.
> 
> Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/
> 
> Buy Free UNIX!
> 
> 


-- 
\O  {Ocie Mitchell (omitchel@hmc.edu) | Go unics, go UNIX! | LINUX | GNU  }  O
 |--{"Momma always said 'life is like a free operatin' system | Free space}_/|\
 |> {you never know what you're gonna get'" | "Parser, I hardly know her" } <| 
(*)_________________________________________________________________________(*)