On 6/19/18 3:36 AM, Quentin Monnet wrote: > Since you are about to respin (I think?), could you please also fix the > formatting in your change to the doc? The "BPF_FIB_LKUP_RET_" is not > emphasized (and will even cause an error message when producing the man > page, because of the trailing underscore that gets interpreted in RST), > and the three cases for the return value are not formatted properly for > the conversion. > > Something like the following would work: > > --- > * Return > * * < 0 if any input argument is invalid. > * * 0 on success (packet is forwarded and nexthop neighbor > exists). > * * > 0: one of **BPF_FIB_LKUP_RET_** codes on FIB lookup > response. > --- >
Will do. thanks for the review.
