<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: Timeouts?



On Wednesday, 10 September 2008 at 22:08, Rado S wrote:
> =- Brendan Cully wrote on Wed 10.Sep'08 at 12:37:07 -0700 -=
> 
> > Yep, I missed this case. This fix looks good to me. Thanks Rocco and
> > Kyle.
> > 
> > On Wednesday, 10 September 2008 at 17:54, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> > > diff -r 17adea9cdff6 -r a2ddd8bae12a keymap.c
> > > --- a/keymap.c    Mon Sep 01 18:23:35 2008 +0200
> > > +      if (ImapKeepalive >= i)
> > > +         imap_keepalive ();
> > > +      else
> > > + while (ImapKeepalive && ImapKeepalive < i)
> 
> Doesn't this mean now that imap_keepalive is called every timeout?
> Not that it would hurt normally, but not quite the intention, is it?
> If you have low Timeout and big ImapKeepAlive, it would be called
> very often, maybe too much for slow lines?

imap_keepalive manages its own timer. If it is called before it is
necessary to poll, it will just return immediately.

Attachment: pgpIXglE7PNZp.pgp
Description: PGP signature