Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Undissected reserved fields
Date Prev Thread Prev
From: "Sean O. Stalley" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:08:26 -0800
+1. Would use this API if added (especially if it could be used for bitfields).

-Sean

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:06:04PM -0800, Guy Harris wrote:
> 
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Jeff Morriss <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > My opinion (which I've voiced on this list many times over the past ~10 years) is that such fields SHOULD be dissected.  Even better they should have an Expert Info if they are supposed to be 0 and aren't (Guy had suggested on a bug or somewhere that we should have an API with a name that includes "mbz"--for Must Be Zero--which would add the Expert Info automatically).
> 
> It was in the thread that started here:
> 
> 	https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201402/msg00131.html
> 
> and I suggested both proto_tree_add_spare() (for fields that are spare and *not* required to be zero) and proto_tree_add_mbz() (for fields that *are* required to be zero) in
> 
> 	https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201402/msg00135.html
> 
> Neither of those take an hf_ value as an argument, so they don't clutter the list of filterable fields with a bunch of individual values for each set of spare bits; to look for "must be zero but isn't", you'd look for the expert info.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>              mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe