From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Feb  1 13:54:56 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA03581
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA03565
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:54:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA21193; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 14:57:18 -0700
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 14:57:18 -0700
From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199602012157.OAA21193@rocky.sri.MT.net>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com>
Cc: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>, michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au>,
        current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ip_fw ordering of rules.. 
In-Reply-To: <993.823208877@critter.tfs.com>
References: <199602011830.LAA20539@rocky.sri.MT.net>
	<993.823208877@critter.tfs.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > > It is always a singled linked list anyway...
> > >  
> > > Ugh ! Then there'll be no disadvantage in removing the "sort" :-)
> > 
> > Except that supposedly it 'orders' things so that the most common rules
> > (or what it thinks should be most common) will be found at the top, thus
> > making it faster since you don't have to walk the entire tree.
> 
> Well, I suggest you look at the ordering then, that is most
> certainly >NOT< what the code does.

That's what it's supposed to do.  I guess it depends on what you think
should be the most 'common' rules. :)

> I will make it an option.

Thanks!


Nate