More "noise" in ifconfig

[Ilya A. Arhipov]

30.11.10, 20:21, "Garrett Cooper" <yanegomi at gmail.com>:

>     Just updated to HEAD and I saw the recent ifconfig, usb ethernet,
>  et all changes:
>  
>  $ ifconfig
>  usbus0: flags=0<> metric 0 mtu 0
>  usbus1: flags=0<> metric 0 mtu 0
>  usbus2: flags=0<> metric 0 mtu 0
>  usbus3: flags=0<> metric 0 mtu 0
>  msk0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500
>  	options=c011b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,TSO4,VLAN_HWTSO,LINKSTATE>
>  	ether 00:1d:60:b6:eb:97
>  	inet 192.168.20.3 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.20.255
>  	media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT
>  <full-duplex,flowcontrol,rxpause,txpause>)
>  	status: active
>  usbus4: flags=0<> metric 0 mtu 0
>  usbus5: flags=0<> metric 0 mtu 0
>  usbus6: flags=0<> metric 0 mtu 0
>  usbus7: flags=0<> metric 0 mtu 0
>  lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 16384
>  	options=3<RXCSUM,TXCSUM>
>  	inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000
>  $ ifconfig -l
>  usbus0 usbus1 usbus2 usbus3 msk0 usbus4 usbus5 usbus6 usbus7 lo0
>  
>      I don't have any USB ethernet devices, so I would expect usbus, et
>  all to be blank, but this would break a few (dumb) scenarios we have
>  at my work where it goes and looks at ifconfig -l (of course I've
>  tried convincing others to use ifconfig -l inet instead, but that was
>  to no avail).
>      This could potentially break other dumb scripts as well.
>      So the question is: what are we gaining with this additional, terse output?
>  Thanks,
>  -Garrett
>  _______________________________________________
>  freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
>  http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
>  To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>  
>  

Log:
 Don't print usbus[0-9] interfaces that it's not the interesting
 interface type for ifconfig(8).
svn commit: r216089