Hi Daniel,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Daniel Willmann dwillmann@sysmocom.de wrote:
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 20:11, Alexander Chemeris wrote:
-unsigned long gsm340_validity_period(uint8_t sms_vpf, uint8_t *sms_vp) +time_t gsm340_validity_period(time_t now, uint8_t sms_vpf, uint8_t *sms_vp) { uint8_t fi; /* functionality indicator */
switch (sms_vpf) { case GSM340_TP_VPF_RELATIVE:
return gsm340_vp_relative(sms_vp);
return gsm340_vp_relative(now, sms_vp);You could also omit now in all the static function and return now + func() in gsm340_validity_period(). That looks slightly cleaner to me and shouldn't change testability.
I made it this way to follow a principle of least surprise - you know, that you always get absolute time as a return value and you don't even need to think about this. But that said, this is a minor issue to me, so I've changed it.
All other comments are proper and are also fixed in the attached patch and in the branch (achemeris/sms-validity).