Comment # 12
on bug 12687
from Michael Mann
(In reply to Oliver Hartkopp from comment #11)
> (In reply to Gerrit Code Review from comment #4)
>
> > The patch I created (https://code.wireshark.org/review/16787) is just a
> > quick hack adding 0xD for CANFD. Right now the canfd dissection is exactly
> > the same as CAN.
>
> In that patch you added:
>
> void
> proto_register_socketcanfd(void)
> {
> proto_can = proto_register_protocol("Controller Area Network FD",
> "CANFD", "canfd");
> canfd_handle = register_dissector("canfd", dissect_socketcanfd,
> proto_canfd);
> }
>
> Should it be "proto_canfd = ..." instead of "proto_can = ..." in this
> function?
I actually have a new patch that's a little better, but I was still using this
conversation to refine it. The original patch was intended mostly as a talking
point to give you hints on where I was coming from to try to narrow the
"language gap" we have when talking about the different technologies.
Wireshark has no influence on the pcap file being written for capture, that's
all in the vcan0 driver. You could set a byte in the CANFD structure (in the
reserved fields) and that should show up in the Wireshark capture (undissected
just like the current CANFD flag field).
The socketCAN dissector could then look at that field to determine CANFD vs
CAN. If we can agree on the value there, that I can put in an updated patch
and you should get better results.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.
