On 27 March 2015 at 15:15, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 10:20 +0100, David Henningsson wrote: >> This idea emerged when writing some code a while ago. If accepted, I'll refactor >> some more modules as well. > > Seems useful, I'm ok with the idea. I didn't review the code carefully, > but I noticed that you made pa_module_hook_connect() an inline function. > It doesn't seem like an important optimization, and my taste is against > needless cluttering of headers with inline functions, but if your taste > is different, then keep the inline function, I don't want to argue about > this. I like the idea too. Not sure if we'll ever need to manage the hooks ourselves (i.e. keep a handle on specific hooks, add/remove dynamically), but this makes the general case easier. I too would prefer not to dump code into headers if avoidable. -- Arun
