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

[Lars Roland <lars.roland@xxxxxxx>]

Ian Schorr wrote:

> Is there any reason why gtk/rpc_progs.c, gtk/h225_ras_srt.c, and 
> gtk/h225_counter.c use reddisect_packets() instead of retap_packets()?  
> Noting the comment in h225_ras_srt.c, it appears someone's already made 
> this observation about one of these files (I'm guessing Guy =).
I don't see any reason not to replace redissect_packets() by 
retap_packets() for the h225 taps. I just tested it with my tracefiles 
and I do not see any problem.
I guess it can be replaced in rpc_progs.c , too, but someone should 
verify.

> If there's no good reason can we change them please?
patches for the h225 taps are attached.

Regards,
Lars

Index: trunk/gtk/h225_ras_srt.c
===================================================================
--- trunk/gtk/h225_ras_srt.c	(revision 11527)
+++ trunk/gtk/h225_ras_srt.c	(working copy)
@@ -336,8 +336,7 @@
 	gtk_widget_show_all(hs->win);
     window_present(hs->win);
 
-    /* XXX - shouldn't this be retap_packets? */
-    redissect_packets(&cfile);
+    retap_packets(&cfile);
 }
 
 void
Index: trunk/gtk/h225_counter.c
===================================================================
--- trunk/gtk/h225_counter.c	(revision 11527)
+++ trunk/gtk/h225_counter.c	(working copy)
@@ -556,8 +556,7 @@
 	gtk_widget_show_all(hs->win);
     window_present(hs->win);
 
-    /* XXX - shouldn't this be retap_packets? */
-	redissect_packets(&cfile);
+	retap_packets(&cfile);
 }
 
 void