"tree check" vs "visit"ed

[mmann78 () netscape net]

I'm working with a dissector that implements "request/response tracking" modeled after 
README.request_response_tracking.  The one problem I noticed with the dissector is that it checks the "if visited flag" 
(pinfo->fd->flags.visited) per the example, but it also checks to see if the "protocol tree" is NULL.  What happens is 
in the "first pass", tree = NULL, so the dissector doesn't do much (because there's no protocol tree).  In the "second 
pass", tree != NULL, but the packet has since been "visited", the request/response handling doesn't get called.   I 
thought I had read on this mailing list that the "tree checks" have been added to the necessary "internal APIs", so 
they aren't needed in a dissector.  Is that true?   That seems less optimal because I assume there would be more "tree 
checks" in the "internal APIs" that done just once in a dissector, but it makes the "if visited" flag much more useful 
(and dissector code much more readable).

Mike

___________________________________________________________________________
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