Wireshark · Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Back to performance...

[Ian Schorr <ethereal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Guy,

Ah, yes, I see that now.  Would still be better if only the taps that 
needed to be updated were updated, but that's much better than I 
thought we were doing.

Still a bit concerned that the taps are being rebuilt when changing 
display filter and other events that really should only change the 
packet list, though.  What if we did something simple like this (see 
attached patch against latest SVN)?

Attachment: file.c.diff
Description: Binary data

Ian

On Jul 23, 2004, at 7:46 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

> Ian Schorr said:
> > In the other direction, is there any reason that the packet list needs
> > to be rebuilt every time a new tap listener is added or changed in 
> > some
> > way?
>
> Definitely not, at least in some cases, which is why I created
> "retap_packets()" and made the tap code use it in some places - it 
> doesn't
> rebuild the packet list, it just redissects the packets (and doesn't 
> even
> bother building the protocol tree if there are no tap filters).