Re: [9fans] sleep(2) historical question

[Charles Forsyth]

well, that's ok.

On 28 November 2012 21:43, Bakul Shah <ba...@bitblocks.com> wrote:
> And in any case why stick to an artificial choice made decades
> ago when it gets in the way of at lease some applications?
> Seems best to get rid of the fixed 100Hz clock and allow as
> fine a timer resolution (& accuracy) as a particular CPU +
> kernel combination can do.