Taehee Yoo <ap420073@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2018-07-02 20:38 GMT+09:00 Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx>: > > Taehee Yoo <ap420073@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> set->nelems is increased when set->size is given. > >> so that checking set->size routine should be added. > > > > Does it make sense to have sets with no upper size? > > > > I think it makes more sense to enforce an upper bound > > so that set->size is always nonzero. > > Thank you for reviewing! > > I agree, > In my opinion, default value that depend on set type should be given. > How do you think? Sounds good to me. -- 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
