From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/27] xt_CONNMARK target, revision 1 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:00:13 +0100 Message-ID: <477E49FD.1030805@trash.net> References: <477E45A5.1060302@trash.net> <477E4689.2010001@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netfilter Developer Mailing List To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:48884 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752864AbYADPDQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:03:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jan 4 2008 15:45, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> Ah ok. I was uncertain because xt_CONNMARK v0 or xt_MARK v0 did it >>> that way too. And since it's not exceeding 80 cols, it's kinda a >>> roll-a-die situation :) >> >> Actually they don't. Maybe your editor did something funny :) >> > > nf_conntrack_proto_sctp.c- switch (chunk_type) { > nf_conntrack_proto_sctp.c: case SCTP_CID_INIT: > > I was right after all ^_^ > Yeah, sctp is a mess.