Re: Timestamp race avoidance in do_update()

[Laine Stump]

Brad Chisholm <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:58:46PM -0500, Derek R. Price wrote:
> >
> > Well, it didn't seem very hard to do, so I had configure search for
> > nanosleep, usleep, and select in that order, then use them in the same
> > order of preference, falling back on sleep as a last resort.  It speeds up
> > 'make check' noticeably.
> > 
> > Checked in.
> 
> Just curious, but will a 20 ms wait be sufficient to prevent timestamp races?
> It appears the times saved in the Entries file have a granularity of 1 sec.

Did you look at the code? The 20ms delay is in a loop that repeats
until the value returned from time() changes. the value returned from
time() changes once each second (ie it has a granularity of 1 sec), so
there is no problem. All that this change does is eliminate a lot of
extra wait *after* the system time had already changed.