[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wireshark-dev
Subject:    Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark-commits: [Wireshark-commits] rev 44161: /trunk/epan/dissectors/ /trunk
From:       Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail ! com>
Date:       2012-07-31 19:55:05
Message-ID: CAGka-82VN3zr5eMxGE06C==2a=k6F5uzzEjWJo6g7GXhoY9VXQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


2012/7/31 <mmann78@netscape.net>

>  I guess where I (and the .pl script) got tripped up was the fact that
> there were separate protocols registered and they gave the impression they
> were unique and not just "one big protocol" broken up over several files.
> The script just generates the "questionable" filters, I was using "human
> judgement" to determine if the filters actually needed to be changed.
> Looking through the filter names, renaming to gmr1_ccch.* seems to make
> more sense then renaming the protocol to gmr1_rr.  It was all a judgement
> call by me, but I'm happy to admit I'm wrong to someone who knows the
> specific protocols better.  The overall goal is just consistency in display
> filter names (bug 2794), but it can get complicated for the .pl script when
> protocols are broken up over multiple files.
>

Hi,

the Radio Resource protocol is used both on common and dedicated channels.
Thus the rename to gmr1_ccch instead of gmr1_rr does not seem the best
option to me as it covers only half of the fields (CCCH means Common
Control CHannel).
The same things goes for the changes done in packet-gsm_a_rr.c (I guess
that packet-gmr1_rr.c writing got badly inspired by packet-gsm_a_rr.c). I
will change it so as to reflect more the reality.

Regards,
Pascal.

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

2012/7/31  <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:mmann78@netscape.net" \
target="_blank">mmann78@netscape.net</a>&gt;</span><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<font color="black" face="arial">
<div>I guess where I (and the .pl script) got tripped up was the fact that there were \
separate protocols registered and they gave the impression they were unique and not \
just &quot;one big protocol&quot; broken up over several files.   The script just \
generates the &quot;questionable&quot; filters, I was using &quot;human \
judgement&quot; to determine if the filters actually needed to be changed.   Looking \
through the filter names, renaming to gmr1_ccch.* seems to make more sense then \
renaming the protocol to gmr1_rr.  It was all a judgement call by me, but I&#39;m \
happy to admit I&#39;m wrong to someone who knows the specific protocols better.  The \
overall goal is just consistency in display filter names (bug 2794), but it can get \
complicated for the .pl script when protocols are broken up over multiple \
files.</div>

</font></blockquote><div><br>Hi,<br><br>the Radio Resource protocol is used both on \
common and dedicated channels. Thus the rename to gmr1_ccch instead of gmr1_rr does \
not seem the best option to me as it covers only half of the fields (CCCH means \
Common Control CHannel).<br>

The same things goes for the changes done in packet-gsm_a_rr.c (I guess that \
packet-gmr1_rr.c writing got badly inspired by packet-gsm_a_rr.c). I will change it \
so as to reflect more the reality.<br><br>Regards,<br>Pascal.<br>

</div></div>



___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]