(I had mixed up the cases in my mail :) On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 19:41 +0000, Jonathan Siwek wrote:
> Yeah, if it reports itself as idle while a packet was just retrieved, then > whether or not it’s actually a candidate to be Process()’d can depend on the > result of a subsequent select() — seems problematic :) > > - Jon > > On Oct 2, 2014, at 2:34 PM, Robin Sommer <ro...@icir.org> wrote: > > > Never mind, I see that's there already. > > > > Robin > > > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 11:48 -0700, I wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 11:25 -0700, Jonathan Siwek wrote: > >> > >>> + SetIdle(false); > >> > >> The 2.1 code was also doing the opposite: setting to true if we have a > >> packet. Not immediately sure if that's necessary. > >> > >> Robin > >> > > > > > > -- > > Robin Sommer * Phone +1 (510) 722-6541 * ro...@icir.org > > ICSI/LBNL * Fax +1 (510) 666-2956 * www.icir.org/robin > > _______________________________________________ > > bro-commits mailing list > > bro-comm...@bro.org > > http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-commits > > > > -- Robin Sommer * Phone +1 (510) 722-6541 * ro...@icir.org ICSI/LBNL * Fax +1 (510) 666-2956 * www.icir.org/robin _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
