Disabling Require timer for T.38 re-Invites tells the remote side it
doesn't need to refresh the session but FreeSwitch will still terminate
the call if the remote session doesn't refresh.
While reviewing code I noticed some dead code. It was not possible to
default to the channel variable because the parameter could not be
both full and empty.
If the parameter is not a non zero length string then the code looked
like it was intending to default to the channel variable
'presence_data_cols'. If neither of these are the case it is a noop.
By enabling the dead code, you now have access to set the
'presence_data_cols' in the dialplan or scripts like lua.
* commit '64fc3f7934888175b80e0cdd3a065d717d0a9014':
Changed the function parameter name in the function definition to match the updated parameter name in the function declaration. #doxygen
Changed the variable name for clarity.
There was a parameter mismatch between abs(), which expects an int,
and atol() which returns a long. Since max_drift is defined as an int,
there is no need to pars q as a long rather than an int.
Clang 3.5 reported the following error: error: taking the absolute
value of unsigned type 'unsigned int' has no effect
[-Werror,-Wabsolute-value]
Subtracting unsigned variables will never be negative and will either
be the small expected value or will wrap to a very big value. This
code is trying to determine if the difference between these timestamps
is greater than 16000.
The variables last_write_ts and this_ts deal with timestamps. In the
normal case this_ts will be a larger timestamp than
last_write_ts. This change will maintain the intended behavior of
reseting the video if the difference is larger than
16000 and in the abnormal case this value would wrap and still exceed
the 16000.
Building with Clang 3.5 gave the following warning: error: comparison
of array 'iface_out.sin6_addr.__in6_u.__u6_addr8' equal to a null
pointer is always false [-Werror,-Wtautological-pointer-compare]
This is a problem because as it is written the check will never be
true. A pointer to a structure within a structure will never be null. The
intention was either to null check the pointer or to check if the IP
address itself was not zero.
From context in the code this appeared to be a pointer null check so I
removed it.
