Hi, On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 05:29:11PM +0930, Simon Lees wrote: > > > 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. --concurrent has never worked away from the early positions ever. What's the issue?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
