Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] doc: fix/improve documentation of verdicts

[Christoph Anton Mitterer <mail@christoph.anton.mitterer.name>]

On Mon, 2025-10-20 at 11:28 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Christoph Anton Mitterer <mail@christoph.anton.mitterer.name> wrote:
> > +*drop*:: Immediately drop the packet and terminate ruleset
> > evaluation.
> > + This means no further evaluation of any chains and it’s thus –
> > unlike with
> > + *accept* – not possible to again change the ultimate fate of the
> > packet in any
> > + later chain.
> > +
> > +
> > +Terminate ruleset evaluation and drop the packet. This occurs
> 
> 
> Hmm, looks like something went wrong during a rebase?
> Why are there 2 blank lines followed by a rephrase of the first
> sentence?

Nah,... my fault, not rebase’s. O:-)
Forgot to remove the old version. Sorry.


> > +For example, a *reject* also immediately terminates the evaluation
> > of the
> > +current rule as well as of all chains, overrules any *accept* from
> > any other chains and can itself not be
> > +overruled, while the various NAT statements may be overruled by
> > other *drop*
> > +verdict respectively statements that imply this.
> 
> I totally dislike this sorry :-(

😅️


> There is no overruling, there is no 'verdict state tracking'.
> 
> Or would you say that a qdisc that dropped a packet overruled a nft
> accept
> verdict...?
> 
> Sorry for spinning on this again and again.

No worries. All fine. :-)


> All this talk about *overrule* makes it sound much more complicated
> than it is.
> Can you re-send this patch standalone, without this pragraph?
> 
> Or perhaps just the 'For example, a *reject* also immediately *drops*
> the packet'.

I removed these examples altogether. The sentence:
> These statements thus behave like their implied verdicts, but with
> side effects.

should actually already be enough... maybe I overdid the "holding-the-
reader's-hand-and-guiding-him-through" a bit here O:-)