Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: pinfo->fd->flags.visited and NFS
From: Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:40:56 -0800
On Jan 13, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Ian Schorr wrote:
I'm still not clear on why your example is a problem though - what's the logic error in doing this test during an "if (tree)" block?
Does the test affect either 1) the dissection of the current frame (e.g., what subdissectors are called); 2) the dissection of any future frames (e.g., does it update any state information); 3) any statistics/tap information? If so, then doing it inside "if (tree)" is wrong because there's no guarantee that it will be called on any particular dissection of the packet other than 1) dissections done to generate a protocol tree for display; 2) dissections done to generate a protocol tree for a packet filter. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- pinfo->fd->flags.visited and NFS Ian Schorr (Jan 13)
- Re: pinfo->fd->flags.visited and NFS didier (Jan 13)
- Re: pinfo->fd->flags.visited and NFS Ian Schorr (Jan 13)
- Re: pinfo->fd->flags.visited and NFS Guy Harris (Jan 13)
- Re: pinfo->fd->flags.visited and NFS didier (Jan 13)
- Re: pinfo->fd->flags.visited and NFS Ian Schorr (Jan 14)
- Re: pinfo->fd->flags.visited and NFS Ian Schorr (Jan 13)
- Re: pinfo->fd->flags.visited and NFS didier (Jan 13)