[PATCH] CTA_PROTO_NUM is u_int8_t not u_int16_t (was Re:
CTA_PROTO_NUM u_int8_t or u_int16_t)
olenf at ans.pl
Wed Nov 23 11:31:18 CET 2005
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 < 126.96.36.199 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 188.8.131.52? I don't know how long we are going to wait
More information about the netfilter-devel