Re: Siginificance of pinfo->fd->flags.visited

[Vishnu Bhatt <vishnu.bhatt () aricent com>]

Thanks for the explanation.


 1.  << The result of a packet dissection is thrown away as soon as the packet has been read and presented, so if you 
'click' on a new packet the dissection has to be redone.>>

"Thrown away" means it's not stored anywhere. Am I right? If yes, why is it thrown away? And also, few things are done 
only once using "flags.visited == FALSE", why then this variable is used, if the previous results are not stored, then 
everything has to be redone.


 1.  << Not sure what you are referring to here >>
In packet-rlc.c in epan/dissectors, duplicity of RLC frames is checked, should that be done everytime?

________________________________
From: wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org] On Behalf Of Anders Broman
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:53 PM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Siginificance of pinfo->fd->flags.visited



From: wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org] On Behalf Of Vishnu Bhatt
Sent: den 10 januari 2014 08:59
To: wireshark-dev () wireshark org
Subject: [Wireshark-dev] Siginificance of pinfo->fd->flags.visited

> Hello all,
>
> Can anyone please explain me the significance of pinfo->fd->flags.visited. I know that this variable is set to TRUE if 
> a packet has been visited once but if we click on the same packet then why all things are done again?

pinfo->fd->flags.visited is FALSE on the first pass when all packets are read in sequence then it's set to FALSE. The 
result of a packet dissection is thrown away as soon as the packet has been read and presented, so if you 'click' on a 
new packet the dissection has to be redone.

> Logically if a frame has been dissected once, it should not be checked again, so condition 
> "if(pinfo->fd->flags.visited == FALSE)" should always be checked before doing the dissection.
No true see above.

> Why the need of re-dissecting >the frame over and over again?

See above.

> My second doubt is that in RLC, if duplicity has already been checked then why to check it again? I mean should the 
> duplicity function be covered under "if(pinfo->fd->flags.visited == FALSE)"?


Not sure what you are referring to here...

Thanks
Vishnu Bhatt




===============================================================================
Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
===============================================================================




===============================================================================
Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
===============================================================================

___________________________________________________________________________
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