Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 02:48:23PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > prefer pr_debug for cases where error is usually not seen by users.
> > checkpatch complains due to lines > 80 but adding a newline doesn't
> > make things any more readable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_rpfilter.c | 2 +-
> > net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6t_rpfilter.c | 2 +-
> > net/netfilter/xt_SECMARK.c | 2 +-
> > net/netfilter/xt_bpf.c | 2 +-
> > net/netfilter/xt_connlabel.c | 2 +-
> > net/netfilter/xt_ipcomp.c | 2 +-
> > net/netfilter/xt_ipvs.c | 2 +-
> > net/netfilter/xt_l2tp.c | 2 +-
> > net/netfilter/xt_recent.c | 4 ++--
> > net/netfilter/xt_socket.c | 8 ++++----
> > net/netfilter/xt_time.c | 2 +-
> > 11 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_rpfilter.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_rpfilter.c
> > index 37fb9552e858..ffd1cf65af3a 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_rpfilter.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_rpfilter.c
> > @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static int rpfilter_check(const struct xt_mtchk_param *par)
> > const struct xt_rpfilter_info *info = par->matchinfo;
> > unsigned int options = ~XT_RPFILTER_OPTION_MASK;
> > if (info->flags & options) {
> > - pr_info("unknown options encountered");
> > + pr_debug("unknown options");
>
> OK, so the idea is to use pr_debug() when it is unlikely to hit an
> error via iptables, right?
Yes, alternatively this pr_* could be removed.
Theoretically we could have some new version of iptables hat support
--rpfilter-foobar flag which would then trigger this -EINVAL.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
