Comment # 7
on bug 8741
from Michael Mann
(In reply to comment #4)
> 3. Why is the data dissector called in
> the "middle" of the dissector, with
> the switch statement apparently
> "sharing" the same data. Are the "types" of
> the switch statement only
> valid when "is control" is true? If that's the
> case, you can just return
> the number of bytes used up to that point and the
> "dissection
> architecture" will end up calling the data dissector for you (or
> perhaps
> another dissector for that payload)
> If I do it this way, I don't get a
> [Data] tree for the payload section of the UDT data packets. I believe I am
> doing the right thing but it doesn't work the way I expect when I do it the
> right way. Yes, that section of the code is a bit hard to read. I will
> rewrite it.
I don't think the payload of the UDT should be a subtree of UDT, it should be
part of the "main" tree. UDT is the payload of UDP (which is a payload of IP),
and they all start at the "main" tree. I didn't see any "Data (dissector)"
packets in your sample trace to use as an example of the difference.
> 5. It looks like the ""Missing Sequence Numbers" would be better as
> expert
> info
> The NAK can contains a single sequence number or a list of
> sequence numbers. That seems to make it clumsy to represent.
I'll provide a patch for what I'm thinking to see if you like it.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.