Attention is currently required from: neels. pespin 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: Code-Review+1
(3 comments)
File include/osmocom/upf/up_session.h:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30465/comment/8c8cbd7f_f6ab61ee 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 stored in one bool? Or can both be present?
File src/osmo-upf/up_session.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30465/comment/1e47335d_e3e7b264 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?
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30465/comment/ba18d7dc_c4fe3215 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?