> 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
