Hi, On 2010-05-12 at 14:01:38 [+0200], Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 2010-05-12 at 13:47:32 [+0200], Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx> > wrote: > > I am not so sure. Who would send the messages locally? Wouldn't that also > > be another thread? > > Nope. > > > I find it much more elegant (because cheaper and even > > more precise) to read from the port with a timeout and process timers when > > it timed out. > > That's pretty much what Axel suggested. There wouldn't be any additional > API. > When port_count_etc() times out (well, the timers probably need to be > considered in the delivery loop, too) the task looper thread would simply > create and deliver the message runner's message immediately. Ah ok, so we are completely on the same page here. I didn't think what Axel suggested was only about avoiding another API. Perfect, then. :-) Best regards, -Stephan