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

[Krzysztof Oledzki]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Patrick McHardy wrote:

> 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.

Can we make it before 2.6.14.3? I don't know how long we are going to wait 
for 2.6.14.4.

Best regards,

 			Krzysztof Olędzki