Looks good by me.
> On 29 Aug 2022, at 14:15, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>
> Anyone?
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 03:24:28PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can we rename the the function in_pcbhashlookup() to in_pcblookup()?
>> Then we have in_pcblookup() and in_pcblookup_listen() as pu
Anyone?
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 03:24:28PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can we rename the the function in_pcbhashlookup() to in_pcblookup()?
> Then we have in_pcblookup() and in_pcblookup_listen() as public PCB
> interface. Using a hash table is only an implementation detail.
>
> For
Hi,
Can we rename the the function in_pcbhashlookup() to in_pcblookup()?
Then we have in_pcblookup() and in_pcblookup_listen() as public PCB
interface. Using a hash table is only an implementation detail.
For internal use I would like to introduce in_pcbhash_insert() and
in_pcbhash_lookup() to a