svn commit: r216089 - head/sbin/ifconfig

[Jung-uk Kim]

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