On 2015-03-10 19:28, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 10.03.2015 19:05, David Henningsson wrote:
>> +PA_MODULE_USAGE("");
>
> No other module does this.
Ok.
>
>> +
>> +#define SAVE_INTERVAL (5 * PA_USEC_PER_SEC)
>
> Some modules use 5 seconds, some 10 seconds. Why the inconsistency?
Bikeshed? I don't know - if anyone has a strong preference or argument
for one 5, 10 or another number, let me know.
>> +static void rplist_save(userdata *u, rplist *rl) {
>> + pa_strbuf *buf;
>> + pa_datum key, value;
>> + rport *r;
>> + unsigned idx;
>> +
>> + pa_assert(u);
>> + pa_assert(u->database);
>
> u->database is guaranteed to be non-NULL by an explicit "otherwise goto
> fail" logic in pa__init() and lack of other assignments. But well - I
> have nothing against obviously-true assertions :)
>
>> + PA_DYNARRAY_FOREACH(r, rl->l, idx) {
>> + if (r->port) {
>> + //void *s = NULL;
>> +
>> + if (r->port->available == PA_AVAILABLE_NO)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + /* Disregard ports not completely set up */
>> +/* s = rl->direction == PA_DIRECTION_INPUT ? (void *)
>> find_source_for_port(r->port) : (void *) find_sink_for_port(r->port);
>> + if (s == NULL)
>> + continue; */
>
> Why is the code commented out?
It should be removed completely, will do so for v2. I used it when I
developed the patch, before the rplist_route could actually set ports up
itself (and then route things to it).
--
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
https://launchpad.net/~diwic
