Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex
format? Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the
attached patch break something in the very bad way?
--
wbr,
Boo
--- af_inet.c.orig 2011-04-07 18:48:28.850931143 +0400
+++ af_inet.c 2011-04-
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Mike Oliver wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 08:08, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the attached patch
break something in the very ba
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the attached patch break
something in the very ba
[snip]
So, maybe, while following the POLA, we should add an option, as Daniel
mentioned above? To output the CIDR?
Eh... I don't know if doing this would be wise because it might break
some 3rd party mechanisms for parsing the output (as broken as you
might think it is), in particular (for ex
08.04.2011 19:55, Mike Bristow пишет:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
If we really wanted to make it human readable, we'd output 10.2.3.4/24
So, maybe,
On 09.04.2011 16:07, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
On 4/9/11 7:33 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Although I see the value of your and Sergey's argument, the problem is
that it may cause unexpected breakage for other third parties that
depend on a particular behavior in FreeBSD as Bjoern and others have
s
On 08.04.2011 16:08, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex
format? Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the
attached patch break something in the very ba
7 matches
Mail list logo
