Le mar. 3 juil. 2018 à 20:57, Richard Sharpe <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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. > 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 <[email protected]> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
