http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1606
jeff.morriss@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
------- Comment #6 from jeff.morriss@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-10-05 21:28 GMT -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created an attachment (id=940)
--> (http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=940&action=view) [details]
> Updated patch (addressing earlier comments)
>
> Issue 1 : Memory management
> Honestly, I'm not quite sure what was going on there either. I pillaged the
> code from packet-tcap.c and didn't give much thought to it. I have removed the
> superfluous range variables and it is still working fine. I guess they weren't
> needed.
Actually, they are needed. As it was, your updated code was doing:
+ if (global_ipfix_ports) {
+ range_foreach(global_ipfix_ports, ipfix_delete_callback);
+ }
[...]
+ range_foreach(global_ipfix_ports, ipfix_add_callback);
(E.g., it was deleting and then re-adding the same ports--which would be the
ones the user just changed the value to be. In other words if the user deleted
some ports from the preference then that deletion would not take effect.)
Sorry for the confusion on that one.
Anyway, I've checked in an updated version of your latest patch that includes
the 2 range variables per preference.
I also updated the dissector to be "new style" (so that it returns 0 if it
finds the packet does not appear to be valid) and changed it so it registers
the old UDP port preference as obsolete (so users don't see a warning about
it).
All that is in rev 23075 (which will be in 0.99.7 or a buildbot build in a
while).
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.