Hello,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 08:10:30AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
</snip>
> > > - si->s->direction != s->direction))) {
> > > + TAILQ_FOREACH(si, &cur->sk_states, si_entry) {
> > > + struct pf_state *tst = si->si_st;
> >
> > appreciate consistency in your diff. it uses 'tst = si->si_st;'
> > however going for 'sis' instead of 'tst' would remind us data here
> > come from state item. This is just a nit. Don't feel strongly
> > about it.
>
> that makes a lot of sense to me. how about 'sist' instead? 's' for state
> feels weird to me after years of 's = splfol()', 'st' seems more
> explicit.
'sist' is perfect.
>
> > diff reads OK to me.
>
> how about this one?
Still reds OK and I like it.
OK sashan
