From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat May 22  7:24:20 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD71214BF4
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 22 May 1999 07:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com)
	by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.00 #1)
	id 10lChA-0006bS-00
	for hackers@freebsd.org; Sat, 22 May 1999 16:24:12 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Logging "promiscuous mode disabled"
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 16:24:12 +0200
Message-ID: <25385.927383052@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


Hi folks,

Are there issues that make the following apparently innocuous change
to the handling of turning off promiscuous mode a bad idea?

It doesn't seem to me like it'd break anything, and I'd like to know
for sure when it's turned off -- it'd mean I don't have to count up the
number of "promiscous mode enabled" messages and make sure that that
number matches the number of applications I've run and subsequently
terminated.

Thanks,
Sheldon.

Index: if.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/net/if.c,v
retrieving revision 1.70
diff -u -d -r1.70 if.c
--- if.c	1999/04/28 11:37:32	1.70
+++ if.c	1999/05/22 14:18:45
@@ -828,6 +828,8 @@
 		if (--ifp->if_pcount > 0)
 			return (0);
 		ifp->if_flags &= ~IFF_PROMISC;
+		log(LOG_INFO, "%s%d: promiscuous mode disabled\n",
+		    ifp->if_name, ifp->if_unit);
 	}
 	ifr.ifr_flags = ifp->if_flags;
 	error = (*ifp->if_ioctl)(ifp, SIOCSIFFLAGS, (caddr_t)&ifr);


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message