Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev 45189: /trunk/ /trunk/: cfile.h file.c

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jakub Zawadzki wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 06:32:26PM +0200, Jakub Zawadzki wrote: >> If we want to have bug #6208 fixed in 1.x we need to revert r45189 + do: >> https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6208#c9 >> >> I'm not sure if I have time for w

Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev 45189: /trunk/ /trunk/: cfile.h file.c

On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:12:50PM +0200, Jakub Zawadzki wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 06:32:26PM +0200, Jakub Zawadzki wrote: > > If we want to have bug #6208 fixed in 1.x we need to revert r45189 + do: > > https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6208#c9 > > > > I'm not sure if I h

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Reverting proto_tree_reset()

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:42:31AM +0100, Jakub Zawadzki wrote: > 2/ major thing for me was to make referencing (HF_REF_TYPE_DIRECT), > and unreferencing (HF_REF_TYPE_NONE) hfinfo->ref_type multi-thread > dissection safe. > > But achieving #2 can be done with some simpler code, rename > dfi

Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFD: The Future of Memory Management in Wireshark

On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Evan Huus wrote: > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Evan Huus wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Dirk Jagdmann wrote: General thoughts from the list on whether or not this would be a good idea? >>> >>> some general comments on the whole wmem idea: >