[PATCH] CTA_PROTO_NUM is u_int8_t not u_int16_t (was Re: CTA_PROTO_NUM u_int8_t or u_int16_t)

[Patrick McHardy]

Pablo Neira wrote:
> Harald Welte wrote:
> 
>>another alternative was to introduce a new CTA_PROTO_NUM8 value, which
>>is more explicit (but somehow stupid).
> 
> 
> Why don't we send a patch to -stable? I think that most people will use
> lastest stable branch in 2.6.14, so only < 2.6.14.3 would be broken. I
> still don't like too much the idea of adding a new field just because of
> this bugfix :(

I would be fine with this.