From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Mon Apr 2 22:04:32 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19DEF4FAEF; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 22:04:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cell.glebi.us (glebi.us [96.95.210.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "cell.glebi.us", Issuer "cell.glebi.us" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AC8B74D1F; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 22:04:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cell.glebi.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.glebi.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w32M4UYr046670 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Apr 2018 15:04:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.glebi.us (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w32M4UDI046669; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 15:04:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebi.us: glebius set sender to glebius@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 15:04:30 -0700 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Kristof Provost Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r331546 - head/etc/rc.d Message-ID: <20180402220430.GD1917@FreeBSD.org> References: <201803260936.w2Q9aMfD082758@repo.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201803260936.w2Q9aMfD082758@repo.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21) X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 22:04:32 -0000 Kristof, I just want to note that this is a huge change of behaviour of pf(4) for a user. Over a decade everybody has been used to the difference between "reload" and "resync". Yes, I admit that back in 2008 the difference was awkward and annoying, but todays I'm afraid that change would be more annoying than keeping status quo. This definitely shouldn't reach stable/11, absolutely. I won't argue about keeping it in head, and thus in 12.0. You are pf maintainer now and you know better. You take the risk of explaining the change to users :) On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 09:36:22AM +0000, Kristof Provost wrote: K> Author: kp K> Date: Mon Mar 26 09:36:22 2018 K> New Revision: 331546 K> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/331546 K> K> Log: K> pf: reload and resync do the same thing K> K> The reload and resync commands for the startup script do exactly the same K> thing, so implement one as a call to the other. K> K> MFC after: 3 weeks K> K> Modified: K> head/etc/rc.d/pf K> K> Modified: head/etc/rc.d/pf K> ============================================================================== K> --- head/etc/rc.d/pf Mon Mar 26 09:07:16 2018 (r331545) K> +++ head/etc/rc.d/pf Mon Mar 26 09:36:22 2018 (r331546) K> @@ -53,12 +53,12 @@ pf_check() K> pf_reload() K> { K> echo "Reloading pf rules." K> - $pf_program -n -f "$pf_rules" $pf_flags || return 1 K> - $pf_program -f "$pf_rules" $pf_flags K> + pf_resync K> } K> K> pf_resync() K> { K> + $pf_program -n -f "$pf_rules" $pf_flags || return 1 K> $pf_program -f "$pf_rules" $pf_flags K> } K> K> -- Gleb Smirnoff