On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:24 AM, Peter Wu <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
