2013/3/19 Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>: > On terça-feira, 19 de março de 2013 14.14.20, Hugo Drumond Jacob wrote: >> > Yes: don't sleep. >> >> In fact, we have a class inherited of QThread that can change the >> default scheduler of thread to use Linux SCHED_FIFO and really change >> the thread priority. We are using that way because we need to >> manipulate some GPIO pins with more resolution than QTimer ( in order >> of micro seconds ). So, "the best" way ( understand more quickly way ) >> to solve this is using sleep. Only for knowledge: some delay of kernel >> context switching don't affect our application of GPIO pins and we >> trying to avoid PREEMPRT patch. > > If you're doing timing sensitive code with resolution better than QTimer, and > you have platform-specific code to place your thread in FIFO real-time > priority, what's the problem with using platform-specific nanosleep(2)?
No problem! In fact, we are using! :D It's just a question about QThread::wait and QThread::sleep: "It's safe use QThread::wait in other situation that not synchronously QThread::terminate ?" and you already answered: yes. Maybe not for this point of our application in specific, but is normal usage. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest