Re: [PATCH][RFC] tcp: fix ambiguity in the `before' relation

[Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

|  > Since the old definition is not used in the way "before(x, y) && !before(y, x)", but rather in the
|  > fashion "before(x, y)" or "after(y, x)", the main advantage of the new definition is that it makes
|  > this type of use a safe case. 
|  
|  This is not true because
|  
|  	if (before(x, y))
|  		goto drop;
|  
|  means that you're effectively using it as !before(x, y).  In other words,
|  the change is good if our code read
|  
|  	if (before(x, y))
|  		process_packet();
|  
That is correct - whether it is indeed safe(r) to use needs to be evaluated in the individual context.