> >For case 2) the behaviour is unexpected: when using iptables-restore > >to update an already existing hashtable <NAME> the updates are > >ignored. > > Well, in a way, this is expected. If ruletable A references hashtable > G and you restore ruletable B also referencing G, you don't > necessarily want to clear out G. I agree when having multiple rules accessing same hashtable. But on rule update it is a bug. I am fine maintaining the patch adressing the rule update, as I am aware of the change in behaviour for the other case. /Holger -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
