From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make hashsize ip_conntrack parameter writable Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:22:48 +1000 Message-ID: <1128979368.8218.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1128536584.9868.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200510071227.j97CRrgx027931@toshiba.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: laforge@netfilter.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Yasuyuki KOZAKAI In-Reply-To: <200510071227.j97CRrgx027931@toshiba.co.jp> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 21:27 +0900, Yasuyuki KOZAKAI wrote: > From: Rusty Russell > Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:23:03 +1000 > > > +static u_int32_t > > +hash_conntrack(const struct ip_conntrack_tuple *tuple) > > +{ > > + return __hash_conntrack(tuple, ip_conntrack_htable_size); > > } > > Why don't we use inline ? Just checking you were reading. Well done, Yasuyuki! We should use "u32", too, not those types I made the mistake of using when I was young and foolish. Rusty. -- A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman