On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:29:19 EST erik quanstrom <[email protected]> wrote: > > the only problem i see with just adding nsleep is it introduces a > second time base, and potentially any time-based call (tsemacquire) > would need to be doubled. i would prefer for the end state to be > 1 user space time base. but the difficulty is getting there. at the > least, the syscall# would change.
If you want to maintain binary compatibility, new syscalls would be needed. If you don't care, you can use wrapper functions for lower precision calls. Evolution is messy.
