From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Samad Subject: Re: IPMARK nfcache Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:49:26 +1100 Message-ID: <20051030054926.GD10248@samad.com.au> References: <20051028221728.GC10248@samad.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wULyF7TL5taEdwHz" Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Grzegorz Janoszka Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 --wULyF7TL5taEdwHz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 07:12:44PM +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: > On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: >=20 > >My IPMARK was based on original MARK target. You can look what has chang= ed=20 > >in libipt_MARK.c and correct it. >=20 > http://patchwork.netfilter.org/netfilter-devel/patch.pl?id=3D2689 >=20 > The patch dedicated to net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MARK.c should go to=20 > ipt_IPMARK.c >=20 > >I don't know if I have to submit a new patch or it will be corrected by= =20 > >netfilter developers? >=20 > I suggest you make the changes, can you do it? Cool, will give it a go! >=20 > --=20 > Grzegorz Janoszka >=20 --wULyF7TL5taEdwHz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDZF7mkZz88chpJ2MRArXWAJ4smrnyAW2loMcXA7V2R8DKVA5UMwCfQaIt inAvxjDppDeuXGV0k3OkBe8= =mQBs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wULyF7TL5taEdwHz--