On Friday 03 December 2010 10:13 am, Brooks Davis wrote: > 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.
+1 Jung-uk Kim _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
