From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Herve Eychenne Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/18] Netfilter: Multiport revision with port ranges (replaces "mport") Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 04:42:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20050108034205.GK8756@eychenne.org> References: <1104896159.20582.79.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050105043027.GA23546@linuxace.com> <1104904015.20582.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050108020322.GA11903@linuxace.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Harald Welte , Rusty Russell , Netfilter development mailing list Return-path: To: Phil Oester Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050108020322.GA11903@linuxace.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:03:22PM -0800, Phil Oester wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:46:54PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > While I agree the above is a useful change, why not also add invers= ion > > > to multiport in the process -- as long as you're making a new revis= ion? > > > Or should that be done in revision 2? > > If you put it in before 2.6.11 is released, it can go in the current > > revision, otherwise we want a new one (where do we put the invert > > flags?). > OK, how about the below which adds inversion? > (note: didn't update manpage, but then again, wasn't updated with previ= ous > changes) Maybe because no one stated what the manpage policy regarding the new revision system would be?... When adding every successive revision documentation of every match/target to the manpage, wouldn't it become severly bloated in the end? Herve --=20 _ (=B0=3D Herv=E9 Eychenne //) v_/_ WallFire project: http://www.wallfire.org/