Hi Marcel, On 06/29/2010 04:37 PM, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
+static gint compare_interval(gconstpointer a, gconstpointer b) +{ + guint i = GPOINTER_TO_UINT(a); + guint j = GPOINTER_TO_UINT(b); + + return i - j; +}So personally I would do val_a - val_b to give some relation to the pointer, but i and j work as well.
I went out of good names. Changed to val_a, val_b.
+unsigned int __connman_rtnl_update_interval_add(unsigned int interval) +{ + guint min; + + if (interval == 0) + return 0; + + update_list = g_slist_insert_sorted(update_list, + GUINT_TO_POINTER(interval), compare_interval); + + min = GPOINTER_TO_UINT(g_slist_nth_data(update_list, 0)); + if (min< update_interval) { + update_interval_callback(min); + __connman_rtnl_request_update(); + } + + return update_interval; +} + +unsigned int __connman_rtnl_update_interval_remove(unsigned int interval) +{ + guint min = G_MAXUINT; + + if (interval == 0) + return 0; + + update_list = g_slist_remove(update_list, GINT_TO_POINTER(interval)); + + if (g_slist_length(update_list) != 0) + min = GPOINTER_TO_UINT(g_slist_nth_data(update_list, 0));I do prefer checks like g_slist_length()> 0. However in this case actually checking for update_list != NULL might be better.
g_lists_length() > 0: done. g_slist_remove and g_slist_length do nothing if NULL is passed in. So it's not really necessary to check update_list, but I agree it's more clear with a update_list != NULL. Do you still want me to add it? thanks, daniel _______________________________________________ connman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
