Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 04:46:21 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Josh Carroll <josh.carroll@psualum.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sockstat tcp/udp switches Message-ID: <20061103024621.GB16445@kobe.laptop> In-Reply-To: <8cb6106e0611021834h17737556y4bb2fda39a4bfa0c@mail.gmail.com> References: <8cb6106e0610311058s7144d38bp2b1dafd114e2b433@mail.gmail.com> <20061102094748.G75543@mignon.ki.iif.hu> <8cb6106e0611021507n6315b629kad8cbbf901343c2@mail.gmail.com> <20061103021803.GC8508@kobe.laptop> <8cb6106e0611021834h17737556y4bb2fda39a4bfa0c@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2006-11-02 18:34, Josh Carroll <josh.carroll@psualum.com> wrote: > >Can we have something that doesn't need one option letter for each > >protocol, protocol family or socket type, please? :) > > I'd be willing to modify it to take a -P argument with one of: > > tcp > udp > tcp,udp > udp,tcp > > If the consensus is to add -P, I'd be happy to make the changes. I > assume without -P we'd want to show both, so perhaps udp,tcp and > tcp,udp aren't necessary. Quite right. If the default is to show *both*, then we only need to specify one of them in the -P argument. If you want, for the sake of completeness to support the "-P proto[,proto]" syntax too, that's also fine, I guess :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061103024621.GB16445>