Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:08:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: luigi@FreeBSD.ORG, ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CFR: patch for bin/18351: ipfw add with no rule number returns the wrong rule number Message-ID: <200010121908.e9CJ8HR84792@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <20001012105026.A12636@sunbay.com> "from Ruslan Ermilov at Oct 12, 2000 10:50:26 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ruslan Ermilov writes: > > I think instead of overloading 'get' (and breaking all user-land > > programs that do 'set') a better approach would be to add a new > > sockopt IP_FW_RULENUM that would retrieve the previously used > > 'automatic' rule number. This would be backward compatible and > > also more intuitive. > > > I instead have decided to allow for IP_FW_ADD to be used in both > setsockopt(2) and getsockopt(2). In setsockopt() case we behave > like it was before. In getsockopt() case we additionally return > the rule back into userland, and it is backwards compatible. OK, that sounds fine to me. > > > Do I need to bump the __FreeBSD_version or not? > > > > In any case, YES. > > Don't you think that 420000 would be appropriate in this case, > assuming I will MFC this before 4.2-RELEASE? I don't think you can do that.. only Jordan should. You can only increase the "minor number", eg., update it from 500012 to 500013 or 411000 to 411001. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010121908.e9CJ8HR84792>