Apologies for the improper selection of recipients. No bad intention.
Best regards
Thorsten
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 10:41:18AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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
