Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I wonder, by the way, if 1/3 and 2/3 shouldn't be applied meanwhile > (perhaps that was the reason for moving this at the end...?). Yes, that was one of the reasons. Pablo, I will resend this patch later, targeting nf-next. I will not resend patches 1 and 2. > Otherwise it's a bit difficult (for me at least) to understand how this > macro should be used (without following the whole path). Alternatively, > a comment could also fix that I guess. I prefer better variable name to comments. > Everything else looks good to me, thanks for all the improvements! Thanks for reviewing. I will wait for patches 1 and 2 to make it to nf, then for nf->nf-next resync and will then resend this with all of your change requests included.
