Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RRC filters
Date Index · Thread Index · Other Months · All Mailing Lists
Date Prev · Date Next · Thread Prev · Thread Next
From: Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:29:34 +0200
2012/9/26 Anders Broman <a.broman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Pascal Quantin skrev 2012-09-26 19:41:


2012/9/25 Lucio Di Giovannantonio <lucio.digiovannantonio@xxxxxxxxx>

Hi pascal, thank you for your resply, maybe "container" could be better?

Regards
Lucio


Hi Lucio,

thanks for your suggestion, I like it. I will wait a few days to see if someone suggests a better wording (or a better approach than my patch proposal in bug 2402 comment 10) and then commit it.

Regards,
Pascal.
For fields like this
    { &hf_rrc_dl_UM_RLC_Mode_01,
      { "dl-UM-RLC-Mode", "rrc.dl_UM_RLC_Mode",
        FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
        "DL_UM_RLC_Mode_r5", HFILL }},
    { &hf_rrc_dl_UM_RLC_Mode_02,
      { "dl-UM-RLC-Mode", "rrc.dl_UM_RLC_Mode",
        FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
        "DL_UM_RLC_Mode_r6", HFILL }},

Using the blurb or dl_UM_RLC_Mode_01 should be better than the current scheme.

Thanks for the suggestion Anders. I will explore using the blurb and falling back to _container when no blub is available and see what it gives.

Regards,
Pascal.