On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 08:32:44PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote: > > > > 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. >
I would change those occurrences to stp. my point is that we don't expect pf_test_rule() to return matching state. with those tweaks diff is OK thanks and regards sashan