Re: Retrieving dissection result from another dissector

[Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe () gmail com>]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:24 AM, Peter Wu <peter () lekensteyn nl> wrote:
>
> > Another possibility is to use p_add_proto_data/p_get_proto_data with packet scope
>
> 1) Presumably you mean pinfo->pool scope - the only scopes p_add_proto_data() allows are wmem_file_scope() and 
> pinfo->pool.
>
> 2) The original purpose of per-packet data was to remember information about a packet that can only easily be 
> determined during a sequential pass through the packets and that is required in order to dissect the packet 
> correctly.  That information would thus have to have *file* scope.
>
> Having that mechanism serve two purposes in this fashion seems like a bit of a hack.
>
> Should we, instead, get rid of the scope arguments to those functions and, instead, have separate functions, one of 
> which serves the original purpose, using file scope, and one of which serves this new purpose, using pinfo->pool 
> scope?

That might make it more obvious what is going on when reading the
code, so I think that is a useful idea.

-- 
Regards,
Richard Sharpe
(何以解憂？唯有杜康。--曹操)(传说杜康是酒的发明者)
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe