On 2011-10-28 10:08, Maarten Bosmans wrote:
> 2011/10/27 David Henningsson<david.henningsson at canonical.com>:
>> Expose the new stuff through pacmd.
>
> Can you also make it available in the pactl output?
That would make sense, I assume. Let's do that once these patches are
merged.
>> Signed-off-by: David Henningsson<david.henningsson at canonical.com>
>> ---
>> src/pulsecore/cli-text.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/pulsecore/cli-text.c b/src/pulsecore/cli-text.c
>> index 5498744..2253635 100644
>> --- a/src/pulsecore/cli-text.c
>> +++ b/src/pulsecore/cli-text.c
>> @@ -102,6 +102,33 @@ char *pa_client_list_to_string(pa_core *c) {
>> return pa_strbuf_tostring_free(s);
>> }
>>
>> +static const char *port_available_to_string(pa_port_available_t a) {
>> + switch (a) {
>> + case PA_PORT_AVAILABLE_UNKNOWN:
>> + return "unknown";
>> + case PA_PORT_AVAILABLE_NO:
>> + return "no";
>> + case PA_PORT_AVAILABLE_YES:
>> + return "yes";
>> + default:
>> + return "invalid"; /* Should never happen! */
>
> In general we use pa_assert_not_reached(). If that's applicable here
> too, then the comment is not necessary anymore.
I don't mind changing this. IIRC, I just tried to follow the convention
around me.
--
David Henningsson
http://launchpad.net/~diwic
