Hi Jakub,
thansks a lot for your help.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:48:07AM +0200, Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
> 1/ You can use value_string_ext (and or hfinfo.display with BASE_EXT_STRING)
>
> static const value_string vs_vendor0[] = { ... }; /* pref_vendor == 0 */
> static const value_string vs_vendor1[] = { ... }; /* pref_vendor == 1 */
>
> static int pref_vendor = 0;
> static value_string_ext vse_vendor0 = VALUE_STRING_EXT_INIT(vs_vendor0);
> static value_string_ext vse_vendor1 = VALUE_STRING_EXT_INIT(vs_vendor1);
> static value_string_ext vs_vendor = VALUE_STRING_EXT_INIT(vs_vendor0); /*needed?*
[...]
I have now decided to use value_string_ext and override the .match function to
a function that first checks in the currently selected vendor-specific value_string
array, and if nothing is found it checks the array that is specified by the TS
12.21 specification.
This combines the strength of all approaches:
* no memcpy'ing the value_string arrays around
* vendor-specific definitions can override the standard (needed for those
who even override standard message types or IEIs)
* very little impact when preference changes, simply re-assing the vs_ext->vs
and vs_ext->length parameters and everything works as indicated.
Now my only major problem with submitting this for inclusion to wireshark
is that all included the A-bis OML TLV parser definitions are making heavy
use of indexed array initializers, i.e.
struct tlv_def foo[] = {
[0x03] = { TLV_TYPE_FIXED, 2 },
[0x33] = { TLV_TYPE_TLV, 0 },
};
And I don't really know of a good way to re-write the code without using
them. And in case you ask yourself why I wrote them that way: They are
copied from the OpenBSC codebase.
> Btw. OpenBSC is great project!
thanks! wireshark too ;)
--
- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
