I've been thinking recently about starting the process of getting rid of the "global" wmem scope methods (wmem_packet_scope, wmem_file_scope, etc) in favour of passing them around in arguments (or in pinfo, or something). This would let us drop a bunch of in-scope/out-of-scope tracking and assertion, as well as make the code more amenable to future refactors like (potentially) concurrency.
At a first glance, we already have pinfo->pool which maintains the lifetime of the packet_info object. As far as I can reason, this is almost/effectively the same as the existing wmem_packet_scope - it gets cleaned up later in the dissection flow, but there's still only ever one which gets reused for each packet. Is this correct? If so, does it make sense to start replacing `wmem_packet_scope()` calls with `pinfo->pool` when pinfo is already in scope? Thanks, Evan ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
