Alessandro Vesely wrote: > David F writes: >> Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>> >>> I have applied the following patch. I think that, at least, new users >>> will not hit this problem again. I'm very sorry that this was not fixed >>> before. Let me know if you are OK with it, we're still in time to revert >>> the patch attached. > > Waiting one version before deprecating might allow smoother changing. > >> For what it's worth, I had previously prepared this patch which just >> clarifies the documentation on this parameter. I think it still has >> value since I also added some missing return-value docs and changed the >> descriptions of a few parameters that I had found to be confusing. > > Good work. Is the (current) generated doc available? I've found an older > version in http://www.nufw.org/doc/libnetfilter_queue/ > > I attach a patch aimed at fixing the example, which is confusing, since > rv can simultaneously be != 0 and >= 0 only if it is > 0. I haven't > resisted an attempt at enumerating verdicts, though. Applied. Thanks. Please, next time include a Signed-off-by tag, short description on the patch and title, it makes it easier for me to apply it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
