From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 7 10:36:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755FE37B401; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from woozle.rinet.ru (woozle.rinet.ru [195.54.192.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3440B43F3F; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:36:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by woozle.rinet.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h67Hassp000432; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:36:54 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:36:54 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Morozovsky To: Don Lewis In-Reply-To: <200307071723.h67HNhM7008249@gw.catspoiler.org> Message-ID: <20030707213257.N48906@woozle.rinet.ru> References: <200307071723.h67HNhM7008249@gw.catspoiler.org> X-NCC-RegID: ru.rinet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Request for Review: bin/54151 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:36:57 -0000 DL> > would you please spend a bit of your time to review DL> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/54151 DL> > [patch to add -i option to arp(8)]? DL> > DL> > Thanks in advance; please keep me CC:d as I'm not subscribet to -net. DL> DL> The first patch looks ok except for the text of the error message at DL> source line 157. Well, it's a piece of old junk: firstly, I used strdup(), and then realized it isn't necessary for argv. So, these lines possibly should look simply like @@ -151,6 +154,11 @@ case 'f' : SETFUNC(F_FILESET); break; + case 'i': + rifname = optarg; + if (checkifname(rifname) == 0) + errx(1, "no such interface: %s", rifname); + break; case '?': default: usage(); DL> I don't think the second patch is necessary. It might be better to DL> print a error message if no matching arp entries are found, since each DL> broadcast interface should at least have its own permanent arp entry. DL> Checking versus the full interface list doesn't do the correct thing in DL> any case since non-broadcast interfaces like lo0, serial WAN interfaces, DL> etc., don't have arp entries. Should DL> arp -i lo0 -a DL> be totally silent, or should it print an error message? Yeah, that was exactly the cause I have separated these two patches. ;-) Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------