On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 01:19:27PM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 03:24 +0000, Weongyo Jeong wrote: > > Author: weongyo > > Date: Wed Dec 1 03:24:38 2010 > > New Revision: 216089 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/216089 > > > > Log: > > Don't print usbus[0-9] interfaces that it's not the interesting > > interface type for ifconfig(8). > > > > Modified: > > head/sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.c > > > > Modified: head/sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.c > > ============================================================================== > > --- head/sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.c Tue Nov 30 22:39:46 2010 > > (r216088) > > +++ head/sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.c Wed Dec 1 03:24:38 2010 > > (r216089) > > @@ -295,6 +295,8 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > sdl = (const struct sockaddr_dl *) ifa->ifa_addr; > > else > > sdl = NULL; > > + if (sdl != NULL && sdl->sdl_type == IFT_USB) > > + continue; > > if (cp != NULL && strcmp(cp, ifa->ifa_name) == 0 && !namesonly) > > continue; > > iflen = strlcpy(name, ifa->ifa_name, sizeof(name)); > > I may be misunderstanding, but isn't this more of a hack than the > correct solution? I appreciate that there are a large number of defined > interface types, but I wonder if we should instead check for interface > types we are prepared to accept, rather than skipping ones we know we > don't want? > > Was this issue introduced with the introduction of the USB pcap changes?
We might consider an interface flag for interfaces that aren't configurable in a meaninful way by ifconfig. Then ifconfig wouldn't have to change going forward. -- Brooks
pgp4VFzFNr0SN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
