<p>In <a href="https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/pull/715#discussion_r53200651">modules/db_virtual/dbase.c</a>:</p>
<pre style='color:#555'>> +{
> + handle_async_t* _ah;
> + handle_con_t * _handle;
> + handle_set_t * _p = (handle_set_t*)_h->tail;
> +
> + if (_s->len > 16384) {
> + LM_ERR("query exceeds buffer size(16384)!\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + if ((_ah=pkg_malloc(sizeof(handle_async_t)+_s->len)) == NULL) {
> + LM_ERR("no more pkg\n");
> + return -1;
> + } else {
> + /* for RR next time the script shall trigger this,
> + * other dest shall be called*/
</pre>
<p>I literally had to read the code in order to understand the comment, rather than vice-verse!</p>
<p>Rule of thumb: when it comes to formulating comments, two things should come to mind: <strong>well-written</strong> vs. <strong>badly-written</strong> (language, acronyms, doc templates, coding style, etc.). <strong>insightful</strong> vs. <strong>impeding</strong> (usefulness of the comment itself: do you really have to <em>explain how round-robin works</em>, or simply that this code just does a <em>"round-robin increment"</em>?)</p>
<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br>Reply to this email directly or <a href="https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/pull/715/files#r53200651">view it on GitHub</a>.<img alt="" height="1" src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AFOciUkVaWoLa2VCmvKSLa3INUjOmcryks5plKdWgaJpZM4Gt7dV.gif" width="1" /></p>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<div itemprop="action" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ViewAction">
<link itemprop="url" href="https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/pull/715/files#r53200651"></link>
<meta itemprop="name" content="View Pull Request"></meta>
</div>
<meta itemprop="description" content="View this Pull Request on GitHub"></meta>
</div>