https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6422
--- Comment #8 from Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> 2011-10-09 01:43:34 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (From update of attachment 7133 [details])
> Why create a new function and not use proto_tree_add_bitmask ?
That's strange.. I thought I tried to find something like that first, but
apparently failed completely. Yes, proto_tree_add_bitmask() looks like the
thing that I wanted to use here.
> So I'm not sure this patch is necessary ! it is not a problem for me to have
> similar bitfield construction...
Well, it is not "necessary", but getting rid of duplicated code that does the
same thing in multiple places sounds like a good idea in general. I'll propose
an updated patch that uses proto_tree_add_bitmask().
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.
