[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=6hXj_a1X-HwYWvWt4_pBto_OQgkWE3VsDmEsJ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:39:53 -0400
From: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@...il.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Jeffrey Hundstad <jeffrey.hundstad@...u.edu>,
viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...com>,
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>,
"git@...r.kernel.org" <git@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Valeo de Vries <valeo@...eo.co.cc>,
Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@...il.com>,
Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@...iler.org>, mihai.dontu@...il.com,
richardcochran@...il.com, "Gadiyar, Anand" <gadiyar@...com>
Subject: Re: Query: Patches break with Microsoft exchange server.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:30 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 12:18 -0400, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, why fall back to one chunk at a time? It seems to
>> me that IMAP should be able to still support multiple outstanding
>> requests in that case, but you'd just get errors on the latter chunks.
>>
>> It is just that there was no point optimizing the workaround case?
>
> There wasn't a lot of point in optimising it.
Say no more :)
I code on some IMAP clients occasionally and I just wanted to make
sure I wasn't missing something important.
Thanks!
Avery
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists