David Favro wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> >>> I have applied your patch but I have mangled this part: >>> >>> @@ -699,10 +705,12 @@ int nfq_set_verdict2(struct nfq_q_handle *qh, >>> u_int32_t id, >>> * \param qh Netfilter queue handle obtained by call to >>> nfq_create_queue(). >>> * \param id ID assigned to packet by netfilter. >>> * \param verdict verdict to return to netfilter (NF_ACCEPT, NF_DROP) >>> - * \param mark mark to put on packet >>> + * \param mark the mark to put on the packet, in network byte order. >>> >>> The mark parameter in nfq_set_verdict2() is in host-byte order. It must >>> be in network-byte order in the deprecated nfq_set_verdict_mark(). >>> >> >> Sorry, it's fine. I got confused with the patch context information. >> That change applies to nfq_set_verdict_mark(). >> > I might have munged it somehow when I rebased it to follow the commit > that created nfq_set_verdict2(), that context does look strange. > Anyhow, it was supposed to be on nfq_set_verdict_mark(). > > While we're at it, here's an update to the documentation which changes > references to nfq_set_verdict_mark() to nfq_set_verdict2(). Please > forgive me if it seems picayune, but there's nothing wrong with having > accurate documentation. I'm always happy to receive patches. Oh, it seems that we have clashed, I pushed this patch a couple of hours ago: http://git.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=libnetfilter_queue.git;a=commit;h=6b4e0a01259a80d91d0eaea01281372b594f05b1 -- 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
