Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Re: [Ethereal-cvs] rev 16411: /trunk/: pcap-util-unix.c

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Index Thread Index Other Months All Mailing Lists
Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next
From: Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:08:28 +0100
Guy Harris wrote:


Ulf Lamping wrote:
IMHO it's not a good idea to use eth_close most of the time and only at some places just use close only. 

This way:
it's harder to understand why sometimes close and sometimes eth_close is needed 
it's hard to find missing wrapper occurrences using grep
if code is copied, it's likely to miss using eth_close when it's needed (but you'll get an error on the Win side, so it's quickly fixed)
Saying all this, if we have a wrapper layer we should use it at all appropriate places, even if it's not required at the specific place.
Even if the descriptor wasn't opened with a wrapper? In pcap-util-unix.c, the descriptor was opened with socket(). 


Oh, didn't noticed this.

We might not want a wrapper around the socket call :-)

So yes, it's ok to use close here.

Regards, ULFL