On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 01:05:55PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > 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. :) That's sensible. > > 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. Let's do that. Thanks.
