On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 04:29:32PM +0000, Edward Cree wrote: > On 02/03/2020 13:20, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > 2) explicit counter action, in this case the user specifies explicitly > > that it needs a counter in a given position of the rule. This > > counter might come before or after the actual action. > > But the existing API can already do this, with a gact pipe. Plus, Jiri's > new API will allow specifying a counter on any action (rather than only, > implicitly, those which have .stats_update()) should that prove to be > necessary. > > I really think the 'explicit counter action' is a solution in search of a > problem, let's not add random orthogonality violations. (Equally if the > counter action had been there first, I'd be against adding counters to > the other actions.) It looks to me that you want to restrict the API to tc for no good _technical_ reason.
