@miconda commented on this pull request.

In src/modules/keepalive/keepalive_rpc.c:

> +	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, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.