On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, at 04:33 PM, Pierre Ossman wrote: > On 22/07/16 11:14, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, at 03:49 PM, Pierre Ossman wrote: > >> > >> Hopefully that's sufficient for now? > > > > Yes, it is. I think the patches you posted look good. Just one question > > -- you moved missing and requested to being size_ts. Is there a reason > > you don't leave them as int64_ts and avoid the casts in comparison? > > > > This was to properly solidify the concept that these can never be > negative, which was the source of the earlier confusion. size_t seemed > to be the type used in the rest of the API for such things. That sounds reasonable. Pushing this out now. > Thanks for merging. Any chance you could have a look at my tunnel module > patches next? :) I thought Tanu might take a look since he's more familiar with that code. But I can put it on my list if that's not the case. It'll probably be after I manage to get through the ramping patches though, since I'd like to have those in soon. Cheers, Arun
