Restore missing break in process_link_channels()

[mkmer]

Addressing issue #447
Restore in inadvertently removed break

[Allan-N]

remote_hangup_helper() is an odd one. The function looks to expect that the passed in myrpt->lock is NOT locked but exits with the lock held.

[InterLinked1]

remote_hangup_helper() is an odd one. The function looks to expect that the passed in myrpt->lock is NOT locked but exits with the lock held.

Yeah, agreed, probably not my best thinking on that one, I took all the identical code and moved it in there without paying attention to that detail.

[InterLinked1]

Please replace your commit message with the following, amend your commit, and force push it:

app_rpt: Readd missing break statement.

Restore a break statement that was accidentally removed during the refactor in
commit 3834be01031a4098a14b2c36f99f99a26223f396.

Fixes: #447

[Allan-N]

Please replace your commit message

Translated ...

• checkout your branch
• git commit --amend
• update the commit comment
• git push --force

[mkmer]

Sorry - other projects I have contributed to put these in the PR rather than commit. Now I know for the next one ;)

[mkmer]

remote_hangup_helper() is an odd one. The function looks to expect that the passed in myrpt->lock is NOT locked but exits with the lock held.

Yeah, agreed, probably not my best thinking on that one, I took all the identical code and moved it in there without paying attention to that detail.

I did do a bit more digging - with the break it now appears to match the original code, but that doesn't mean it was right in the first place :)
Just wanted to share my observations - some times that new guy has a dumb question that everyone missed.

[InterLinked1]

remote_hangup_helper() is an odd one. The function looks to expect that the passed in myrpt->lock is NOT locked but exits with the lock held.

Yeah, agreed, probably not my best thinking on that one, I took all the identical code and moved it in there without paying attention to that detail.

I did do a bit more digging - with the break it now appears to match the original code, but that doesn't mean it was right in the first place :) Just wanted to share my observations - some times that new guy has a dumb question that everyone missed.

Glad you did some digging - you uncovered something important here we had all missed until now! It's much appreciated.

The PR description is nice, but really it's the commit that matters since that's what's merged and what people will see when they look at the repo's history.