Attention is currently required from: pespin. neels has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30465 )
Change subject: clarify comments and naming around PDR+FAR classification ......................................................................
Patch Set 1:
(3 comments)
File include/osmocom/upf/up_session.h:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30465/comment/6c3f64b1_d09f85f6 PS1, Line 97: bool access_to_core;
Isn't access_to_core and core_to_access exclusive? meaning it's one or another and hence can be stor […]
it can be { access_to_core, core_to_access, neither }. a single bool is not sufficient, an enum would do. a bool (two bools) is simplest to use in 'if' conditions
File src/osmo-upf/up_session.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30465/comment/50e0494d_66d2f3d4 PS1, Line 1140: static void add_gtp_action_tunend(void *ctx, struct llist_head *dst, struct pdr *pdr)
Looks like this function should return an int?
(s.b.)
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30465/comment/dced0d69_0d8cb932 PS1, Line 1235: static void add_gtp_action_tunmap(void *ctx, struct llist_head *dst, struct pdr *pdr)
Same, looks like this function should return an int?
the caller isn't interested in any result. since it is a static funtion no need to return anything before there is a direct need for that in the caller