* Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com [2014-03-07 07:40]:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 23:56, Lawrence Teo wrote:
pf_check_congestion() simply checks if ifq-ifq_congestion is non-zero,
and returns 1 or 0 accordingly. It is only called by pf_test_rule().
Since what pf_check_congestion() does is
* Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com [2014-03-07 07:40]:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 23:56, Lawrence Teo wrote:
pf_check_congestion() simply checks if ifq-ifq_congestion is non-zero,
and returns 1 or 0 accordingly. It is only called by pf_test_rule().
Since what pf_check_congestion()
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 10:22:59AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
* Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com [2014-03-07 07:40]:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 23:56, Lawrence Teo wrote:
pf_check_congestion() simply checks if ifq-ifq_congestion is non-zero,
and returns 1 or 0 accordingly. It is only
pf_check_congestion() simply checks if ifq-ifq_congestion is non-zero,
and returns 1 or 0 accordingly. It is only called by pf_test_rule().
Since what pf_check_congestion() does is very trivial and pf_test_rule()
is its only user, would it make sense to remove it and let
pf_test_rule() check
