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.