Re: Retrieving dissection result from another dissector

[Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com>]

Le mar. 3 juil. 2018 à 20:57, Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe () gmail com>
a écrit :

> 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.

As the scope is an explicit argument, I find it quite clear what's going on
already. Personally I do not think a new function is required (the
add/get/remove being what they mean), and they are here since a long time
so it would change existing habits.

BR,
Pascal.

___________________________________________________________________________
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