Hi Arun,
Thanks for review,
>> -struct userdata {
>> +struct bluetooth_device {
>
> What's the rationale behind this? While the whole "struct userdata"
> business makes code navigation just a bit hard sometimes, broadly it's
> handy as a convention across modules.
I don't know why but that made the code much more understandable to me ;)
However, if it's a convention then I'll stick to it.
> Would it make sense perhaps to make a separate msgobject for the
> bluetooth device/card with just the pa_card so you can pass that around
> instead?
That's a good idea, I didn't feel confortable mixing msgobject with
struct userdata!
>> - ? ?m->userdata = u = pa_xnew0(struct userdata, 1);
>> + ? ?u = pa_msgobject_new(bluetooth_device);
>> + ? ?memset(((char*)u)+sizeof(u->parent), 0, sizeof(*u)-sizeof(u->parent));
>
> Maybe I'm being dense, but why is sizeof(*u) not sufficient here?
pa_msgobject_new will initialize some fields in the msgobject at the
beginning of *u, so I don't want to overwrite these field, I also
don't want to overflow u.
But if the message object goes in a separate struct, then there is no
longer the need to use memset if only one field (card) is to be set.
Regards,
Fr?d?ric
