> > On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 16:14 +0200, Peter Meerwald wrote: > > - if (address && c_address && g_strcmp0(address, c_address) != 0) > > + if (g_strcmp0(address, c_address) != 0) > > ip_change = true; > > - else if (gateway && c_gateway && g_strcmp0(gateway, c_gateway) != 0) > > + else if (g_strcmp0(gateway, c_gateway) != 0) > > Nitpick, but plain 'g_strcmp0(...)' is preferred here.
certainly, will do a v2 > > ip_change = true; > > else if (prefixlen != c_prefixlen) > > ip_change = true; > > - else if (!c_address || !c_gateway) > > - ip_change = true; > > Should this also be 'g_strcmp0(...)'? So that if the gateway changes, > becomes set or unset, an update is made. I don't understand the comment; the patch drops "if (!c_address || !c_gateway)" if the gateway changes, then "g_strcmp0(gateway, c_gateway)" should handle all cases: NULL and "something2" -> != 0 "something1" and NULL -> != 0 "something1" != "something2" -> != 0 "something1" == "something2" -> 0 NULL and NULL -> 0 similarly for the address > > else > > ip_change = false; thanks for considering the patch, p. -- Peter Meerwald +43-664-2444418 (mobile) _______________________________________________ connman mailing list [email protected] https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
