Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ipset: change 'iface' part in hash:net,iface set

[Mr Dash Four <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com>]

> I'm talking about the same sets, but two rules, in two cases. The result 
> of the rules depend on the syntax of yours.
>   
[...]
> That's the problem: they are not always interchangeable. Sometimes they 
> are, sometimes they aren't. 
>   
[...]
>> And that is because the second dimension parameter is accounted for and you
>> have a member of the list1 set which is not of type hash:net,iface - that is
>> where the definition of in/out are different. Show me where the
>> "inconsistency" or the "confusion" is here then?
>>     
>
> And this is what I call inconsistency and leads to confusion.
>   
[...]
>>> 4. step
>>>
>>> 	ipset del list1 netiface0
>>>
>>>     Rule a. and rule b. produce again the same result.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Oh yeah? Are you for real? They produce different results! The reason for that
>> is because the second dimension ('dst' and 'out') differ - by definition - for
>> sets other than hash:net,iface, which is the case here (ipport0 is still a
>> member of list1) - the same as step 3 above. Show me where the "inconsistency"
>> or the "confusion" is here then?
>>     
>
> No, I'm mistaken here. Yeah, I myself were confused with your damned 
> syntax.
>   
Let me ask you a question then - if I send you the patches where in/out 
is allowed in list:set and produces "consistent" (by your own 
high-standards) result would that be OK with you (if not, why not)?