Attention is currently required from: arehbein.
2 comments:
Patchset:
I noticed that half the error fixed here is caused by a patch from this series. […]
(actually it ended up https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30460 being squashed into this patch)
I find the commit message + ASCII graphic confusing. […]
re renaming, that would have to be a separate patch.
i see a potential for confusion with 'pdr_at_core' and 'far_at_core'. In PFCP, a PDR is linked to a FAR, and it is 'pdr_at_core' linked to 'far_at_access' and vice versa.
I prefer to have a similarity between the names of the PDR+FAR linked together, to match the semantics in PFCP. So I chose pdr+far and rpdr+rfar with r meaning reverse. true, if it were more verbose there could be less documentation. i'd see pdr_access_to_core + far_acces_to_core and pdr_core_to_access + far_core_to_access but they are so much longer. pdr_a2c + far_a2c and pdr_c2a + far_c2a ? if you insist i could change that -- but in a separate patch.
To view, visit change 30466. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.