Anders,
Ooops, my brain seems to stay in the days of 5 years ago, when we used
to post patches on the dev mailing list. I will open the case in
bugzilla. I don't know why the patch doesn't apply. I will check it.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
---
Motonori Shindo
2011/4/6 Anders Broman <a.broman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Motonori Shindo skrev 2011-04-06 06:55:
>
> Hi,
>
> Current NetFlow V9/IPFIX dissector treats IN_BYTES (IE=1) and
> IN_PERMANENT_BYTES (IE=85) exactly in the same way. The same applies
> to IN_PKTS (IE=2) and IN_PERMANENT_PKTS (IE=86). However,
> IN_BYTES/IN_PKTS and IN_PERMANENT_BYTES/IN_PERMANENT_PKTS have
> different semantics so they should be distinguishable when they are
> displayed or specified in a filter. Please find attached the patch
> which does that.
>
> Regards,
>
> ---
> Motonori Shindo
>
> You should attach your patch to a bug report at
> https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla
> It does not apply though:
> patching file epan/dissectors/packet-netflow.c
> patch: **** missing line number at line 5: @@ -%ld,%ld +%ld,%ld @@
> Regards
> Anders
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
