Sounds good! :) Gilbert
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Jeff Morriss <[email protected]>wrote: > On 02/17/14 17:44, Jakub Zawadzki wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 05:07:04PM -0500, Evan Huus wrote: >> >>> After yet another patch submission where this was unclear, I would >>> like to propose the following change: >>> >>> tvb_length, tvb_length_remaining, etc. are changed to all operate on >>> the reported length on the wire >>> >>> tvb_reported_* are dropped in favor of tvb_captured_* which operate on >>> the available captured length (what is currently given by just >>> tvb_length). >>> >>> The problem is that 95% of the time the intended behaviour is best >>> achieved by the reported length, >>> >> >> What's the use case of remaining 5%? Heuristic dissectors? >> > > Yes (so we can check if it's our packet without throwing an exception). > And "can I do reassembly/checksum/whatever?" (aka "do I have the whole > packet?") > > > ____________________________________________________________ > _______________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> > Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe >
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
