On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 11:04:04AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Hi Phil, > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:37:15PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > With ebtables-nft.8 now educating people about the missing > > functionality, get rid of atomic remains in source code. This eliminates > > mostly comments except for --atomic-commit which was treated as alias of > > --init-table. People not using the latter are probably trying to > > atomic-commit from an atomic-file which in turn is not supported, so no > > point keeping it. > > That's fine. > > If there's any need in the future for emulating this in the future, it > should be possible to map atomic-save to ebtables-save and > atomic-commit to ebtables-restore. I had considered that, but the binary format of atomic-file drove me off: If we can't support existing atomic-files easily, we better deny unless someone has a strong argument to do it. And then I'd try to support it fully, so it's not a half-ass solution with a catch. :) > Anyway, this one of the exotic options in ebtables that makes it > different from ip,ip6,arptables. Given there are better tools now that > are aligned with the more orthodox approach, this should be OK. Let's hope most users went with the familiar save/restore approach instead of opening a whole new can for ebtables alone. Thanks, Phil
