PATCH Re: ipt_ulog.h versus ebt_ulog.h

[Amin Azez]

Do we need an equivalent patch for ulog2?

ipt_ULOG was logging the bridge device instead of the physical devices
(for bridged packets at least).

This patch does it's best to cause logging of the physical devices
involved. I realise the patch is not going to be handled as it addresses
ulog1 but I should ask if the problem of not logging physical devices is
also a problem with ulog2.

Harald; also does it make sense with ulog2 to talk about merging
ebt_ulog_packet_msg and ulog_packet_msg?

Sam


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ulog.physdev2.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1017 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/netfilter-devel/attachments/20051019/4d05e78b/ulog.physdev2.bin