More "noise" in ifconfig

[Garrett Cooper]

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,
-Garrett