On 4/6/21 12:27 PM, Firo Yang wrote: > The 04/03/2021 20:22, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:15:17PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:07:40PM +0800, Firo Yang wrote: >>>> Our customer reported a following issue: >>>> If '--concurrent' was passed to ebtables command behind other arguments, >>>> '--concurrent' will not take effect sometimes; for a simple example, >>>> ebtables -L --concurrent. This is becuase the handling of '--concurrent' >>>> is implemented in a passing-order-dependent way. >>>> >>>> So we can fix this problem by processing it before other arguments. >>> >>> Would you instead make a patch to spew an error if --concurrent is the >>> first argument? >> >> Wrong wording: >> >> Would you instead make a patch to spew an error if --concurrent is >> _not_ the first argument? > > Hi Pablo, I think it would make more sense if we don't introduce this > inconvenice to users. If you insist, I would go create the patch as you > intended. Agreed, that also wouldn't be seen as a workable solution for us "SUSE" as our customers who may have scripts or documented processes where --concurrent is not first and such a change would be considered a "Change in behavior" as such we can't ship it in a bugfix or minor version update, only in the next major update and we don't know when that will be yet. Sure this is probably only a issue for enterprise distro's but such a change would likely inconvenience other users as well. Cheers -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
