Hi Slawek,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011, Slawomir Bochenski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> index 80dfc02..d396203 100644
> >> --- a/plugins/phonebook-tracker.c
> >> +++ b/plugins/phonebook-tracker.c
> >> @@ -1551,6 +1551,8 @@ int phonebook_pull_read(void *request)
> >> if (!data)
> >> return -ENOENT;
> >>
> >> + data->newmissedcalls = 0;
> >> +
> >> if (g_strcmp0(data->req_name,"/telecom/mch.vcf") == 0 &&
> >> data->tracker_index == 0) {
> >> /* new missed calls amount should be counted only once - it
> >
> > Shouldn't this be added inside the first if-statement branch instead of
> > affecting the whole function? It seems to me that only the first branch
> > deals with new missed calls.
>
> If the pulled phone book is mch, setting this to zero has to be done
> in case of calling the function when data->tracker_index != 0. So it
> would have to be added inside second and third branch, or second and
> third branch can be nested inside a new branch. 'newmissedcalls' is
> used unconditionally in code in pulls from every phone book (not only
> mch), and whether or not the header is actually sent depends on
> non-zero value of it. Thus always presetting it to zero makes sense.
Fair enough. The patch has now been pushed upstream. Thanks for the
clarification.
Johan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
