Re: Proposal for new syscalls: getrusagex and waitx

[Adam Hoka <adam.hoka%gmail.com@localhost>]

David Holland wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 01:41:37AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>  >     Date:        Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:10:23 +0000
>  >     From:        David Holland <dholland-tech%NetBSD.org@localhost>
>  >     Message-ID:  <20081018181023.GA28689%netbsd.org@localhost>
>  > 
>  >   | > int waitx(pid_t wpid, int *status, int options, struct plistref 
> *rusage);
>  >   | 
>  >   | That should be wait5, for consistency with the various other forms of
>  >   | wait.
>  > 
>  > Huh?   Why.
> 
> wait, waitpid, wait3, wait4, the next version in sequence should be
> wait5? Or maybe not.

wait3 takes 3 arguments, wait4 takes 4. Get it? :)

waitx sounds very logical.


--
Adam

Attachment: pgpylxeEhljkV.pgp
Description: PGP signature