From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1627C433B4 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2021 18:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706EB610D1 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2021 18:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231816AbhDCSPZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Apr 2021 14:15:25 -0400 Received: from mail.netfilter.org ([217.70.188.207]:57086 "EHLO mail.netfilter.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230516AbhDCSPY (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Apr 2021 14:15:24 -0400 Received: from us.es (unknown [90.77.255.23]) by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DF0E63E3E; Sat, 3 Apr 2021 20:15:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 20:15:17 +0200 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Firo Yang Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ebtables: processing '--concurrent' beofore other arguments Message-ID: <20210403181517.GA4624@salvia> References: <20210401040741.15672-1-firo.yang@suse.com> <20210401040741.15672-2-firo.yang@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210401040741.15672-2-firo.yang@suse.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org 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? --concurrent has never worked unless you place it in first place anyway.