Thomas Bushnell, BSG, le Wed 11 Aug 2010 10:03:31 -0700, a écrit : > 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. Changing the interface here isn't > the issue so much as changing the implementation.
I agree. No need to introduce another interface, Mach's timer need to be improved anyway to get the functionality, and then everything will be fixed immediately. Samuel
