From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Bursztyka Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] add insert after to nf_tables Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:59:35 +0300 Message-ID: <51C2E097.9090901@linux.intel.com> References: <1371628997-13548-1-git-send-email-eric@regit.org> <51C17E26.2020608@linux.intel.com> <20130620094243.GA5703@localhost> <51C2D0D8.1020309@linux.intel.com> <20130620101012.GA19679@localhost> <51C2DB10.1060607@linux.intel.com> <20130620104621.GC31140@macbook.localnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , Eric Leblond , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:8380 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754893Ab3FTK7j (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:59:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130620104621.GC31140@macbook.localnet> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Patrick, >> >Maybe there is a better way, probably. But you get my point. > We could instead of using NLA_RULE_HANDLE for the position add a new > attribute NLA_RULE_POSITION and use that both for creating rules and > for notifications. It would always be set and contain the handle of > the rule preceeding the new rule (for NLM_F_APPEND) or the one > following it (for !NLM_F_APPEND). I like that, it follows the current API design logic and it's simpler to implement in both sides. It's much simpler indeed! Tomasz