On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:42 PM,
<olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:03:31AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The current technique is to use a blocking mach_msg which will never
> complete, and with a timeout. The reason that nanosleep and usleep
> don't work is because 10ms is the granularity of the Mach clock.
Yeah, we figured that out...
> Changing the interface here isn't the issue so much as changing the
> implementation.
You mean changing the way message timeouts are handled in general? Or
special-casing the specific situation?...
I think improving the timeout granularity in general would be rather
complicated, and make little sense... I can't say anything about
special-casing -- don't know the details of this mechanism.
-antrik-