Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Request for review: bug #2048
From: Alexey Neyman <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:57:55 +0300
Hi Jaap,

Actually, there is one more addition to epan/proto.c: 
proto_tree_add_bitmask_text(), more flexible version of 
proto_tree_add_bitmask().

Would it help if I separate these enhancements to common
code from the dissector enhancements and submit them
separately?

Best regards,
Alexey.

On 13 January 2008 Jaap Keuter wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> Indeed you've made an enhancement to the IPMI dissector. But also to
> the type system, creating BASE_CUSTOM. All in all it's an invasive
> patch which has to be considered carefully before inclusion.
> There's some more interesting stuff waiting in the patch queue, so
> they won't get lost; they will be addressed when someone can spend
> the necessary spare time on it.
>
> Thanks for your patience,
> Jaap
>
> Alexey Neyman wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Some time ago, I submitted enhancements to IPMI dissector (bug
> > #2048). I updated the patch to apply against more recent revision
> > (24072). Could it be reviewed/integrated?
> >
> > Also, I noted that there are some enhancements suggested in context
> > of the bug #1970. Currently, the changes suggested in patch mostly
> > duplicate the code contained in epan/dissectors/packet-ipmi.c, the
> > only difference being that the IPMB messages (which that plugin
> > dissects) do not have IPMI session wrapper. This patch splits IPMI
> > session header parsing from parsing the IPMI messages themselves.
> > This way, the plugin in bug #1970 could reuse the "generic"
> > dissector for IPMI.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alexey.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev