Am 17.09.2013 14:28, schrieb Arun Raghavan:
+ const pa_alsa_ucm_device *d1 = *(pa_alsa_ucm_device **)a;
+ const pa_alsa_ucm_device *d2 = *(pa_alsa_ucm_device **)b;
+
+ return strcmp(pa_proplist_gets(d1->proplist, PA_ALSA_PROP_UCM_NAME),
pa_proplist_gets(d2->proplist, PA_ALSA_PROP_UCM_NAME));
+}
+
static void ucm_add_port_combination(
pa_hashmap *hash,
pa_alsa_ucm_mapping_context *context,
@@ -687,9 +695,16 @@ static void ucm_add_port_combination(
char *name, *desc;
const char *dev_name;
const char *direction;
- pa_alsa_ucm_device *dev;
+ pa_alsa_ucm_device *sorted[num], *dev;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < num; i++)
+ sorted[i] = pdevices[i];
Couldn't we use memcpy() here which would possibly be faster?
I prefer the readability of doing it explicitly in
non-performance-sensitive code.
I find memcpy() most readable. In contrast, such a loop makes me wonder
if there is a reason for not doing memcpy() here (causing confusion
instead of improving readability).
Best regards.
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
