From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Westphal Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] xt_psd: remove unneeded variables Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:35:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20120917073557.GA9909@breakpoint.cc> References: <1347830995-19226-1-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de> <1347830995-19226-6-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Florian Westphal , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([80.244.247.6]:34817 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753537Ab2IQHf7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2012 03:35:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Sunday 2012-09-16 23:29, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > >- dest port and dest address were only written, never read > >- struct inaddr isn't needed either, just look at iph->saddr > > > I have applied 01..04, with some redactional changes (diff > 975f017..093f3b0). Alright, the changes are ok; I'll update the remaining patches to use stdint-types. > >-static inline int hashfunc(struct in_addr addr) > >+static unsigned int hashfunc(__be32 addr) > > You are changing the type of hash here. While I concur with using an > unsigned quantity for a hash value, this is not done consistenly - there > are some (signed) "int hash"s left in the code. Can I get a patch that > rectifies this consistently across the entire .c file as well? Sure; I'll rebase to remaining patches on top of your tree. > BTW, does the _10 in your branch name have any significance? :) Not really; I usually start out with foo_01 and then increment the number when rebasing/structuring the changeset.