From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1449474258406244458==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Denis Kenzior Subject: Re: [PATCH] smsutil: do not hardcode TP-ValidityPeriod Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:55:12 -0600 Message-ID: <4D0AB4F0.1040801@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1291845421-1898-1-git-send-email-Pekka.Pessi@nokia.com> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============1449474258406244458== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Pekka, On 12/08/2010 03:57 PM, Pekka.Pessi(a)nokia.com wrote: > From: Pekka Pessi > = > --- > src/smsutil.c | 6 ++---- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > = > diff --git a/src/smsutil.c b/src/smsutil.c > index f4eee24..59faaf7 100644 > --- a/src/smsutil.c > +++ b/src/smsutil.c > @@ -3162,11 +3162,10 @@ GSList *sms_datagram_prepare(const char *to, > memset(&template, 0, sizeof(struct sms)); > template.type =3D SMS_TYPE_SUBMIT; > template.submit.rd =3D FALSE; > - template.submit.vpf =3D SMS_VALIDITY_PERIOD_FORMAT_RELATIVE; > + template.submit.vpf =3D SMS_VALIDITY_PERIOD_FORMAT_ABSENT; Can I get a bit more of an explanation from you as to why the 'absent' validity period is better than hardcoding this to 24 hours? Regards, -Denis --===============1449474258406244458==--