2010/11/30 Ilya A. Arhipov <pa36ouHu4er_at_yandex.ru>: > 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? ... > Log: > Don't print usbus[0-9] interfaces that it's not the interesting > interface type for ifconfig(8). > svn commit: r216089 Yeah, I saw that earlier. Thanks, -GarrettReceived on Wed Dec 01 2010 - 05:24:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:09 UTC