On Aug 22, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
My personal opinion is that this bitfields should be hidden in a
subtree, like this patch:
- proto_tree_add_uint(ip_tree, hf_ip_frag_offset, tvb, offset +
6, 2,
- (iph->ip_off & IP_OFFSET)*8);
+ tf = proto_tree_add_uint_format(ip_tree, hf_ip_frag_offset, tvb,
offset + 6, 2,
+ iph->ip_off, "Fragment offset: %d", (iph->ip_off &
IP_OFFSET)*8);
+ field_tree = proto_item_add_subtree(tf, ett_ip_frag_offset);
+ proto_tree_add_item(field_tree, hf_ip_frag_offset, tvb, offset +
6, 2, FALSE);
That's adding one more layer, with what amounts to a copy of the value
underneath it. Other than providing the raw offset, what advantages
does it offer? (There, I think, are other dissectors that have
bitfields that aren't in a subtree; if the word containing all the
bitfields isn't specified as an item of its own in the protocol, I'm
not sure it needs to be put into the protocol tree.)
