On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:32 -0700, Denis Kenzior wrote:
> Hi Inaky,
>
> On 07/07/2010 06:24 PM, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:04 -0700, Denis Kenzior wrote:
> >> Hi Inaky,
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> ....
> >
> >>> if (sms->txq) {
> >>> - g_queue_foreach(sms->txq, (GFunc)g_free, NULL);
> >>> + g_queue_foreach(sms->txq, tx_queue_entry_destroy_free, NULL);
> >>> g_queue_free(sms->txq);
> >>> sms->txq = NULL;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> Can we simply unify the two functions and simply call it
> >> tx_queue_entry_free? For symmetry renaming create_tx_queue_entry to
> >> tx_queue_entry_new would be nice.
> >
> > Makes sense -- thought it cannot be done, but I realized
> > sms_msg_cancel() needs a _destroy_free(), not just a _destroy(), so that
> > settles that last one. Will do the _create() rename too.
>
> Good, can you resubmit this one separately soonish? I'm touching this
> area of the code because of Andrew's changes for STK Send SMS command
> handling.
Sigh, your changes broke havoc on mine, as they completely change the
code flow. I started trying to integrate Friday after giving up on that
rebase (or not) issue and just applying commits as patches, but it is
almost like starting from scratch.
Heads up, this means I'll have to retest the heck out of it and yet
another delay once I figure out how to reshape everything for the new
code flow.
_______________________________________________
ofono mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
