Should we separate "Unknown/Disabled"?
Checksum validation may be disabled, or it may be enabled; however, due to insufficient bytes available to verify that checksum (e.g., small snaplen value caused the packet to be cut short), it may be unknown if the checksum is good or bad.
The TCP window scaling factor uses -1 for unknown and -2 when no scaling is used, so I'd recommend also using -1 for unknown here, and then use -2 if checksum verification is disabled.
-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-commits-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-commits-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 3:53 PM
To: wireshark-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Wireshark-commits] rev 50322: /trunk/epan/ /trunk/epan/: expert.c expert.h
http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=50322
User: mmann
Date: 2013/07/02 12:53 PM
Log:
Add proto_tree_add_expert and proto_tree_add_expert_format. This was added to expert.h instead of proto.h because the underlying code to process expert info is static (and should probably remain so). Also, proto_tree_add_expert and proto_tree_add_expert_format follow "expert info" rules in that they should be called regardless of tree status (even though they take a tree as an argument), unlike the functions in proto.h
Also added an enumeration for checksum validation status, as verifying checksums is considered "expert" functionality.
Directory: /trunk/epan/
Changes Path Action
+44 -2 expert.c Modified
+40 -0 expert.h Modified
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the intended recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by replying to this email. Thank you.
