From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [iproute PATCH] man: ip-rule.8: Further clarify how to
 interpret priority value
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:44:05 -0700
Message-ID: <20170424114405.2884a1ee@xeon-e3>
References: <20170424153537.15072-1-phil@nwl.cc>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.83.53]:36123 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S972560AbdDXSoO (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:44:14 -0400
Received: by mail-pg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id g2so17189199pge.3
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170424153537.15072-1-phil@nwl.cc>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:35:37 +0200
Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc> wrote:

> Despite the past changes, users seemed to get confused by the seemingly
> contradictory relation of priority value and actual rule priority.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>

Makes sense. Applied.