On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 00:31 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 00:18:16 +0100, a écrit :
> > > I don't understand what you mean. What delay are you talking about? > > > The only delay in by branch is the delay requested by the user. > > > > Well, with my code I need a timeout of 1ms for poll, with the old code I > > don't. > > That 1ms is completely got ridden of by Richard's changes. I don't > understand what problem you are still seeing. I know that Richards change solve the problem by moving the timeouts to the server. I was referring to the current situation. I had to use 1ms in the_io_select() call, while the old code worked without, when the double timeout bug was fixed by moving the delay to the __mach_msg call only and use zero in the _io_select timeout argument.
