On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:29:32AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> egbert. wrote:
> > So we can have one config var for ‘socket timeout on idle’. This
> > is to solve the hanging mutt problem which people (like me) are
> > complaining about when you pack up your laptop and go somewhere
> > else.
egbert. wrote:
> So we can have one config var for ‘socket timeout on idle’. This
> is to solve the hanging mutt problem which people (like me) are
> complaining about when you pack up your laptop and go somewhere
> else. And, it can be the same value for read and write.
> Then, when you are sendi
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 06:30:51PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Hi Allen!
>
> Thanks for your favorable feedback on the new patch. Have you had a
> chance to test it for a while?
I’ve been testing it for about a day now :) But I will now be using it daily
and I’ll let you know if anything
Hi Allen!
Thanks for your favorable feedback on the new patch. Have you had a
chance to test it for a while?
egbert. wrote:
> Only I’m not sure about the signals – is it the case that
> if we get a signal, we will simply abort the read/write and return error?
Yes, that's correct.
> (That seem
Hi, Kevin.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:13:42AM +0300, egbert. wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:15:55PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > > Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > > > I wasn't really happy having a loop counter option for GnuTLS. It turns
> > > > out the GNUT
egbert. wrote:
> Looks like nice work, Kevin. Cool that this will hopefully get crossed off
> the list.
Thanks Allen, but I have to give you credit for the original patch!
> But personally I can’t give any feedback or test it until next
> week at the earliest.
That's fine. Please just let me
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:15:55PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > > I wasn't really happy having a loop counter option for GnuTLS. It turns
> > > out the GNUTLS_E_AGAIN is translated directly from EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK.
> > > Since we're no
Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > I wasn't really happy having a loop counter option for GnuTLS. It turns
> > out the GNUTLS_E_AGAIN is translated directly from EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK.
> > Since we're not using non-blocking io, this will only be triggered by
> > our timeout.
>
>
Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> I wasn't really happy having a loop counter option for GnuTLS. It turns
> out the GNUTLS_E_AGAIN is translated directly from EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK.
> Since we're not using non-blocking io, this will only be triggered by
> our timeout.
Sorry, I was wrong. It will return GN
egbert. wrote:
> Attached is my patch for the hanging socket problem.
>
> I hope this fixes 3369 and 3491, which indeed sound very similar to the
> problem I reported.
>
> All comments welcome.
>
> I used hg export against the tip of the default branch to produce the diff;
> please let me know
10 matches
Mail list logo