Hi, Le jeudi 20 juin 2013 à 12:46 +0200, Patrick McHardy a écrit : > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 01:36:00PM +0300, Tomasz Bursztyka wrote: > > Hi Pablo, > > > > >>Hum, how? > > >>The handle it will get from the notification is the handle of the > > >>newly created rule, not the one used to identify the rule for > > >>insertion. ... > LE_F_COMMIT in its anonymous enum) > > > > Maybe there is a better way, probably. But you get my point. > > We could instead of using NLA_RULE_HANDLE for the position add a new > attribute NLA_RULE_POSITION and use that both for creating rules and > for notifications. I like that. Reusing NLA_RULE_HANDLE was making feel somehow uncomfortable. > It would always be set and contain the handle of > the rule preceeding the new rule (for NLM_F_APPEND) or the one > following it (for !NLM_F_APPEND). Nice, reworking my patches in that direction. BR, -- Eric
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
