From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD30AC43603 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 11:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A289324673 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 11:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726371AbfLGLwI (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Dec 2019 06:52:08 -0500 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([193.142.43.52]:34408 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726025AbfLGLwI (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Dec 2019 06:52:08 -0500 Received: from fw by Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1idYd4-0002Q1-Mo; Sat, 07 Dec 2019 12:52:06 +0100 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 12:52:06 +0100 From: Florian Westphal To: Florian Westphal , Pablo Neira Ayuso , Netfilter Development Subject: Re: Documentation question (verdicts) Message-ID: <20191207115206.GC795@breakpoint.cc> References: <20191202102623.GA775@dimstar.local.net> <20191207012843.GA22674@dimstar.local.net> <20191207111645.GB795@breakpoint.cc> <20191207114909.GA928@dimstar.local.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191207114909.GA928@dimstar.local.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Duncan Roe wrote: > So are you saying that the existing documentation: > > NF_STOP accept, but don't continue iterations > can be more clearly expressed by something like: > > NF_STOP accept, but skip any further base chains using the current hook > ? Yes, thats right.