Thorsten Scherer <t.scherer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From tcpdump(8):
>
> -dd Dump packet-matching code as a C program fragment.
>
> Fixes: 7924cd5e0b3a ("filter: doc: improve BPF documentation")
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Scherer <t.scherer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/networking/filter.rst | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/filter.rst b/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> index 8eb9a5d40f31..06e244094f49 100644
> --- a/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ assured that the filter will be kept until the socket is closed.
> The biggest user of this construct might be libpcap. Issuing a high-level
> filter command like `tcpdump -i em1 port 22` passes through the libpcap
> internal compiler that generates a structure that can eventually be loaded
> -via SO_ATTACH_FILTER to the kernel. `tcpdump -i em1 port 22 -ddd`
> +via SO_ATTACH_FILTER to the kernel. `tcpdump -i em1 port 22 -dd`
> displays what is being placed into this structure.
So I suspect you may be right, but both are legal options. When you
apply a Fixes tag to a patch, it's generally a good idea to copy the
author of the patch you claim to be fixing. Let's do that now and see
what Daniel has to say...?
Thanks,
jon
