Refactor: send_data_from_ioa_socket_nbh

[KangLin]

No description provided.

[jonesmz]

shouldn't this be #ifdef'd like the TLS support is?

[KangLin]

a label + goto It's a bad habit！ At 2024-01-20 05:20:52, "Michael Jones" ***@***.***> wrote: @jonesmz commented on this pull request. In src/apps/relay/ns_ioalib_engine_impl.c:

if (!s) {

ioa_network_buffer_delete(NULL, nbh); return -1; } - if (s->done || (s->fd == -1)) { - TURN_LOG_FUNC(TURN_LOG_LEVEL_INFO, - "!!! %s: (1) Trying to send data from closed socket: 0x%lx (1): done=%d, fd=%d, st=%d, sat=%d\n", - __FUNCTION__, (long)s, (int)s->done, (int)s->fd, s->st, s->sat); - TURN_LOG_FUNC(TURN_LOG_LEVEL_INFO, "!!! %s socket: 0x%lx was closed\n", __FUNCTION__, (long)s); + do { this is a weird way to use a do{}while() loop. I think it would be better if you used a label + goto statements like most C code uses. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jonesmz]

Its less bad than abusing do-while just to mimic how a goto works?

…

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 00:11 Kang Lin ***@***.***> wrote: a label + goto It's a bad habit！ At 2024-01-20 05:20:52, "Michael Jones" ***@***.***> wrote: @jonesmz commented on this pull request. In src/apps/relay/ns_ioalib_engine_impl.c: > if (!s) { ioa_network_buffer_delete(NULL, nbh); return -1; } - if (s->done || (s->fd == -1)) { - TURN_LOG_FUNC(TURN_LOG_LEVEL_INFO, - "!!! %s: (1) Trying to send data from closed socket: 0x%lx (1): done=%d, fd=%d, st=%d, sat=%d\n", - __FUNCTION__, (long)s, (int)s->done, (int)s->fd, s->st, s->sat); - TURN_LOG_FUNC(TURN_LOG_LEVEL_INFO, "!!! %s socket: 0x%lx was closed\n", __FUNCTION__, (long)s); + do { this is a weird way to use a do{}while() loop. I think it would be better if you used a label + goto statements like most C code uses. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***> — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1326 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFYQR6VPVVTRKFILM26JQ3YPNN2VAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7YT7QB6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMBRG43TQMBSGQ> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[eakraly]

@KangLin could you please explain in the description the goal of the refactoring: why is it done, what was wrong and how the change makes it better.
Much easier than trying to get the meaning by reading the code. Thanks!