From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul  7 10:23:54 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 75D6B37B401
	for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org>; Mon,  7 Jul 2003 10:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC30743F85
	for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org>; Mon,  7 Jul 2003 10:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h67HNhM7008249;
	Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200307071723.h67HNhM7008249@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: marck@rinet.ru
In-Reply-To: <20030706213123.X10099@woozle.rinet.ru>
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 <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:23:54 -0000

On  6 Jul, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> would you please spend a bit of your time to review
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/54151
> [patch to add -i option to arp(8)]?
> 
> Thanks in advance; please keep me CC:d as I'm not subscribet to -net.

The first patch looks ok except for the text of the error message at
source line 157.

I don't think the second patch is necessary.  It might be better to
print a error message if no matching arp entries are found, since each
broadcast interface should at least have its own permanent arp entry.
Checking versus the full interface list doesn't do the correct thing in
any case since non-broadcast interfaces like lo0, serial WAN interfaces,
etc., don't have arp entries.  Should
	arp -i lo0 -a
be totally silent, or should it print an error message?