freebsd stable - Oct 2005 - RFC: proposed patch for /usr/src/usr.sbin/wicontrol/wicontrol.c

wicontrol.c defaults to the "wi" interface.  I used to have a
wi device, but it eventually took a dump and I bought a new
ath-based card, which works flawlessly AFAIK, after four months
or so.

But I grow weary of having to specify "-i ath0" every time I
run wicontrol.

Please review the following patch to /usr/src/usr.sbin/wicontrol/wicontrol.c
which modifies wicontrol to look for an environment variable
WI_IFACE and if set, take the interface name from that variable.
If unset, the interface name defaults to "wi0" just as before, 
which hopefully will make this POLA compliant.  Googling for 
"WI_IFACE" I find no indications that this variable name already 
is in use for anything else.

Apologies in advance for the simple diff output patch.

Jim


t21 : 15:13:58 /usr/src/usr.sbin/wicontrol# diff wicontrol.c.orig wicontrol.c
1092c1092,1094
<                       iface = "wi0";
---
>                       if ((iface = getenv("WI_IFACE")) == NULL) {
>                               iface = "wi0";
>                       }

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 03:20:47PM -0700, James Long
wrote:
> wicontrol.c defaults to the "wi" interface.  I used to have a
> wi device, but it eventually took a dump and I bought a new
> ath-based card, which works flawlessly AFAIK, after four months
> or so.
> 
> But I grow weary of having to specify "-i ath0" every time I
> run wicontrol.
> 
> Please review the following patch to
/usr/src/usr.sbin/wicontrol/wicontrol.c
> which modifies wicontrol to look for an environment variable
> WI_IFACE and if set, take the interface name from that variable.
> If unset, the interface name defaults to "wi0" just as before, 
> which hopefully will make this POLA compliant.  Googling for 
> "WI_IFACE" I find no indications that this variable name already 
> is in use for anything else.
> 
> Apologies in advance for the simple diff output patch.
wicontrol is obsolete and you should not need to use it, particularly
for ath(4) devices.  Why are you using it?  Is some feature you need
missing from ifconfig?

-- Brooks

-- 
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20051026/10950a99/attachment.bin

> wicontrol is obsolete and you should not need to use it, particularly
> for ath(4) devices.  Why are you using it?  Is some feature you need
> missing from ifconfig?
The command I use most is wicontrol -L

> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:05:23 +0930
> From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
> Subject: Re: RFC: proposed patch for
> 	/usr/src/usr.sbin/wicontrol/wicontrol.c
> 
> > The command I use most is wicontrol -L
> 
> Try ifconfig ath0 list scan
# ifconfig ath0 list scan
ifconfig: list: bad value
#

> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:05, James Long wrote:
> > > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:05:23 +0930
> > > From: "Daniel O'Connor"
<doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
> > > Subject: Re: RFC: proposed patch for
> > > 	/usr/src/usr.sbin/wicontrol/wicontrol.c
> > >
> > > > The command I use most is wicontrol -L
> > >
> > > Try ifconfig ath0 list scan
> >
> > # ifconfig ath0 list scan
> > ifconfig: list: bad value
> > #
> 
> Er weird..
> Is this in 6.0 or 5.x?
FreeBSD t21.museum.rain.com 5.4-STABLE FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #0: Mon Oct 24 12:49:5
5 PDT 2005     root@t21.museum.rain.com:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/T21  i386