Oh, btw. On Jan 21 17:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jan 21 23:25, Takashi Yano wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:45:10 +0100 > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > This bugs me a bit. While your solution nicely wraps the entire > > > timer problem into cygwait(), the downside is that each invocation > > > of cygwait() creates its own timer. Theoretically, given this is in a > > > loop with up to 100 iterations, you have up to 100 additional timer > > > create/destroy sequences. > > > > > > So the question is, do you think this matters at all in this scenario, > > > given we're in a 10 ms wait state anyway? > > > > > > If you think that's not an issue, feel free to apply the patch with > > > just the one-liner above. > > > > Thansk for reviewing. > > cygwait (NULL, 10, cw_mask) is just waiting for resolving pipe full. > > Therefore, I think the overhead of creating and destroying a timer > > every 10 msec in the wait loop is small enough to be negligible. > > That is, the CPU load will be almost the same if we avoid it.
You removed the release message with the revert. Might be nice to add a new one. Corinna
