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-
