Thomas Jacob wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 17:28 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
I can't spot any bugs, so I'm going to apply it so we can get
some testing. Some minor coding style issues before I'll apply
it though:
Thomas Jacob wrote:
diff --git a/libiptc/libiptc.c b/libiptc/libiptc.c
index d0f51b4..e0c44c3 100644
--- a/libiptc/libiptc.c
+++ b/libiptc/libiptc.c
@@ -126,6 +126,26 @@ struct chain_head
unsigned int foot_offset; /* offset in rule blob */
};
+/* Max. number of chain_head per offsets chunk */
+#define OFFSETS_CHUNK_SIZE (1024)
+
+struct offsets_create_chunk
What does "create" stand for?
Well, originally I wanted to copy those chunks into an array,
thus the create tag, so I'll just rename it to offsets_chunk,
shall I?
Yes, that sounds better.
+{
+ struct list_head list;
+
+ unsigned int head_offset; /* of first entry */
+ unsigned int foot_offset; /* of last entry */
first_offset/last_offset perhaps?
Those are the names used inside chain_head.... admittedly for the length
of a whole change, but I could change that, no problem
That was just a suggestion triggered by the comments.
+#define binary_array_range_search(value, array, left, right, size, low, high, mid, result) \
+ low = 0; \
+ high = size; \
+ result = -1; \
+ while(low<=high) \
+ { \
+ mid = (low + high) / 2; \
+ if ((array)[mid]->left > value) \
+ high = mid - 1; \
+ else if ((array)[mid]->right < value) \
+ low = mid + 1; \
+ else { \
+ if ((array)[mid]->left <= value && value <= (array)[mid]->right) \
+ result = mid; \
+ break; \
+ } \
+ }
Any chance to make this a bit prettier? Does it need to be a macro?
No, I just didn't want to write the same code twice.... that's all,
what do you suggest, doing that (writing the same code twice)?
No, a macro is better than duplicating it. I was just wondering
whether a function would also do.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
