miconda commented on this pull request.
+ return;
+}
+static const char *keepalive_rpc_get_doc[2] = {
+ "gets destination info data from keepalive memory. usage keepalive.get
sip:xx@domain listname", 0};
+
+
+static void keepalive_rpc_flush(rpc_t *rpc, void *ctx)
+{
+ ka_dest_t *dest;
+ LM_DBG("Keepalive flushes \n");
+ ka_lock_destination_list();
+
+ for(dest = ka_destinations_list->first; dest != NULL; dest = dest->next) {
+ free_destination(dest);
+ }
+ ka_destinations_list->first = 0;
There is no strict policy on using `NULL` or `0` for pointers, probably the former is
more intuitive for pointers and eventually raise compile warnings if the type is not
pointer, but there are many places in the code where `0` is used for this purpose. If
someone wants to make it coherent everywhere by using `NULL` instead of `0` for pointers,
I am fine with it.
Given that the PR is rather old here, I am going to merge it and fix what was pointed in
the other comments.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/2177#discussion_r363394577