can you send a new patch for this?
the old one dumped code when it tried it
which might be due to the other changes done to the file confusing patch.
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:15:42 +0200, Lars Ruoff <Lars.Ruoff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The VoIP calls analysis function registers taps for different protocols
> that can be
> > inside the same packet -e.g. SIP and SDP, or MTP and ISUP-. Would the
> patch affect the
> > behaviour in this case?
>
> Well, no, unless your code relies on the specific "undefined" tap call
> order
> we had till now ;-)
> It was: The protocol item which called tap_queue_packet last got its tap
> called first (LIFO).
> I suggest changing it to calling the taps in strictly the same order as the
> different dissectors call "tap_queue_packet" for a given packet (FIFO).
>
> Since most dissectors call tap_queue_packet at the very end of dissection
> (after having called sub-dissectors) that might brake some code that uses
> taps at different protocol levels and shares state information among these
> (and relies on taps of higher level protocols beign called *before* lower
> level protocols).
> Again, if this is the case, the code *was* already broken with regard to
> the
> current documentation in which the order of tap listeners is explicitly
> stated as "undefined".
> Could you check if that might be a problem for VoIP calls?
>
> regards,
> Lars Ruoff
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Francisco
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ethereal-dev mailing list
> > Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
>
