On Apr 28, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Acked-by: Ethan Jackson
>
> I don't really like the API we've ended up with here. But I think
> it's fine for now. As discussed offline, I intend to change it later.
>
You mean you don’t like what happens beneath the API, as it did not ch
Acked-by: Ethan Jackson
I don't really like the API we've ended up with here. But I think
it's fine for now. As discussed offline, I intend to change it later.
Ethan
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> I haven't read this patch yet, but a high level question. Why not
> j
I haven't read this patch yet, but a high level question. Why not
just hide all of struct cls_rule and make callers embed a pointer to
it? We'd replace the cls_rule_init() function with a
cls_rule_create() function which mallocs the rule and returns it (for
example).
Ethan
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014
Keep an internal representation of a rule separate from the one
embedded into user's structs. This allows for further memory
optimization in the classifier.
Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme
---
lib/classifier.c| 211 +--
lib/classifier.h
