> +{
> + handle_async_t* _ah;
> + handle_con_t * _handle;
> + handle_set_t * _p = (handle_set_t*)_h->tail;
> +
> + if (_s->len > 16384) {
> + LM_ERR("query exceeds buffer size(16384)!\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + if ((_ah=pkg_malloc(sizeof(handle_async_t)+_s->len)) == NULL) {
> + LM_ERR("no more pkg\n");
> + return -1;
> + } else {
> + /* for RR next time the script shall trigger this,
> + * other dest shall be called*/
I literally had to read the code in order to understand the comment, rather
than vice-verse!
Rule of thumb: when it comes to formulating comments, two things should come to
mind: **well-written** vs. **badly-written** (language, acronyms, doc
templates, coding style, etc.). **insightful** vs. **impeding** (usefulness of
the comment itself: do you really have to *explain how round-robin works*, or
simply that this code just does a *"round-robin increment"*?)
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/pull/715/files#r53200651
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
