"Guy Harris" wrote in message
news:46df3675-ddb3-4a9a-bb54-3c32a101d...@alum.mit.edu...
> I've checked into the trunk a change to rename:
>
> dissector_add() -> dissector_add_uint()
> dissector_change() -> dissector_change_uint()
> dissector_delete() -> dissector_delete_uint()
> dissector_get_po
I've checked into the trunk a change to rename:
dissector_add() -> dissector_add_uint()
dissector_change() -> dissector_change_uint()
dissector_delete() -> dissector_delete_uint()
dissector_get_port_handle() -> dissector_get_uint_handle()
dissector_reset
On Dec 19, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Romel Khan wrote:
> $ uname -a
> Linux ... SMP ...
Wow, what a surprise:
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0208.3/0119.html
Is there no way to tell Linux to arrange that packets be delivered to a
PF_PACKET socket in time stamp order? If not,
Andreas writes:
> So it looks like that it is bad practice to check for tree==NULL. The
> proto_tree_add_... functions will check for tree==NULL by itself. The
> delayed dissection was done for improved speed. ;-(
Well, it's not bad practice per se, but it does require some careful
considerati
$ uname -a
Linux XYZ 2.6.9-42.ELsmp #1 SMP Wed Jul 12 23:27:17 EDT 2006 i686 i686 i386
GNU/Linux
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Romel Khan wrote:
>
> > I did a capture and notice that packets are not chronologically sorted.
>
> That sounds lik
Am 18.12.2010 19:28, schrieb Gregory Seidman:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:57:29AM +0100, Andreas wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> // proto.h
>>
>> WIRESHARKAPI proto_tree* proto_tree_create_root(void);
>>
>> WIRESHARKAPI proto_item *
>> proto_tree_add_item(proto_tree *tree, const int hfindex, tvbuff_t *tvb,
>
Am 10.12.2010 15:33, schrieb Christopher Maynard:
> Andreas writes:
>
>> I found an inconsistency with the expert info. While expert infos of
>> severity ERROR are reported, these are not displayed in the summary dialogs.
>
> Please file a bug report for this ... preferably with a capture file
>
