Joerg Mayer wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 01:13:16AM +0200, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
>> The direction is to use dumpcap in tshark as well. The direction is
>> therefore to use as much of the capture_loop code in tshark as
>> reasonably possible.
>>
>
> Is anyone going to actually do that?
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> ... and now it's checked in!
Excellent, thanks Ulf!
> BTW: The mkfifo command isn't available on Win32 (even on cygwin), so I
> made this test configurable in config.sh.
Ah. Good thinking. Perhaps this should be something like
which 'mkfifo' >/dev/null && TEST_FIFO=1
so a
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 01:13:16AM +0200, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> The direction is to use dumpcap in tshark as well. The direction is
> therefore to use as much of the capture_loop code in tshark as
> reasonably possible.
Is anyone going to actually do that? It's been on the agenda for quite a
whil
Richard van der Hoff wrote:
> Any thoughts on this? Ulf, in particular? At the very least, a
> clarification of the direction this code is supposed to be going would
> be appreciated.
>
> To summarise the story so far:
>
> - capture from a fifo doesn't work for tshark
> - I proposed a patch to ma
Any thoughts on this? Ulf, in particular? At the very least, a
clarification of the direction this code is supposed to be going would
be appreciated.
To summarise the story so far:
- capture from a fifo doesn't work for tshark
- I proposed a patch to make tshark use capture_loop_dispatch rather
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Richard van der Hoff wrote:
>> Richard van der Hoff wrote:
>>> [tshark from a fifo]
>>> Ulf - I notice you made the relevant change here (r16787) - is there
>>> any reason why tshark shouldn't use capture_loop_dispatch to do its
>>> processing, rather than attempting to use c
Richard van der Hoff wrote:
> Richard van der Hoff wrote:
>> [tshark from a fifo]
>> Ulf - I notice you made the relevant change here (r16787) - is there
>> any reason why tshark shouldn't use capture_loop_dispatch to do its
>> processing, rather than attempting to use cap_pipe_dispatch or
>> pc
Richard van der Hoff wrote:
> Richard van der Hoff wrote:
>> [tshark from a fifo]
>> Ulf - I notice you made the relevant change here (r16787) - is there
>> any reason why tshark shouldn't use capture_loop_dispatch to do its
>> processing, rather than attempting to use cap_pipe_dispatch or
>> pc
Richard van der Hoff wrote:
[tshark from a fifo]
Ulf - I notice you made the relevant change here (r16787) - is there any
reason why tshark shouldn't use capture_loop_dispatch to do its
processing, rather than attempting to use cap_pipe_dispatch or
pcap_dispatch directly?
well, there didn't
