> On 5 Jan 2023, at 18:56, Alexandr Nedvedicky <sas...@fastmail.net> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 09:36:38PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
>> and "stp" for pf_state ** variables.
>> 
>    I agree with established naming conventions.
> 
>    I'm also fine with keeping some exceptions such as `a` and `b`
>    in pf_state_compare_id(), local variables `tail`, `head`
>    in pf_states_{clr, get}() and pf_purge_expired_states().
>    I'm also fine with leaving static variable `cur` unchanged.
> 
> is there any reason we still keep `pf_state **sm` argument
> in pf_test_rule()? the same in pf_create_state(). Is it intended?

there were a bunch of other arguments that ended with m. happy to change it to 
**stp though. we can always do another sweep for other types.

> 
> otherwise diff reads OK to me.
> 
> thanks and
> regards
> sashan

Reply via email to