From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: nfq_set_verdict_mark Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:20:26 +0200 Message-ID: <452B2D9A.7080702@trash.net> References: <986D9B66-68B6-4A02-9762-40224E145496@cadvium.net> <4521284C.2070000@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Robert Scott , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Pablo Neira Ayuso In-Reply-To: <4521284C.2070000@netfilter.org> 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 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Robert Scott wrote: > >>i noticed that this function doesn't automatically convert the mark into >>the expected network byte order. this is a minor detail, but the >>current behavior may confuse users. since nfq_get_nfmark automatically >>converts the mark into host order, i thought nfq_set_verdict_mark would >>also do the reverse. >> >>not really a big deal, and this will probably break most existing >>installations in the field, but perhaps a note in the docs to give new >>users a heads up. > > > Yes, I agree what you, we have to document this minor issue, I think > that we can introduce more API that can solve this inconsistency. Do we actually have documentation where we can document it? :) I'm beginning to wonder how much more kludges we will have in these libraries by continuing to treat them as stable without having had even a single beta version.