On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:33:26PM +0100, David Aggeler wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Wow. How counter intuitive can things get.
Yes, I must admit that by first search attempt was "heuristic" which
gave only one result in the dialog.
> >> The one of DICOM appears to be named "dicom_tcp" ("DICOM over TC
Hi Peter,
Wow. How counter intuitive can things get.
>> The one of DICOM appears to be named "dicom_tcp" ("DICOM over TCP").
For me 'Enable/Disable Protocol' meant exactly that. Enable/Disable the full
protocol dissection
But indeed, having some TCP ports configured for DICOM and the 'child pro
Hey David,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 06:32:08PM +0100, David Aggeler wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for the hint. Ok. I just debugged and apparently the DICOM one as
> many others is DISSECTOR_TYPE_SIMPLE. Not sure how to change, but also not
> sure whether it is that relevant. However, I return
One is linked to yahoo!ID, the other one is GitHub ID. I'd like to keep the 2nd.
David
-Original Message-
From: Wireshark-dev On Behalf Of Richard
Sharpe
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 17:35
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Removal of one of my ger
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the hint. Ok. I just debugged and apparently the DICOM one as many
others is DISSECTOR_TYPE_SIMPLE. Not sure how to change, but also not sure
whether it is that relevant. However, I return 0 when it does not match (more
like new style)
If the dissectors are combined like
Great idea! I think I can store it in conversation structure, because I
already use it to track some parameters of fragments.
2018-03-22 18:00 GMT+01:00 Peter Wu :
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:07:05PM +0100, Anton Glukhov wrote:
> > I have dissector which works with fragments and reassembling by
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:07:05PM +0100, Anton Glukhov wrote:
> I have dissector which works with fragments and reassembling by using
> fragment_add_check() and process_reassembled_data() functions. Now I got
> one problem. Each new fragment must be validated thought CRC32 calculation,
> but not f
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:30 AM, David Aggeler wrote:
>
>
> I’ve got two account IDs with gerrit. I’d like to get rid of one of them. It
> already created confusion. I don’t seem to be able to remove it myself.
Heh. You too. Was one from github?
> Who can help?
Gerald can, I believe.
--
Regar
I've got two account IDs with gerrit. I'd like to get rid of one of them. It
already created confusion. I don't seem to be able to remove it myself.
Who can help?
Regards
David
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailin
Hi David,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:50:07AM +0100, David Aggeler wrote:
>
>
> I'm intending to re-enable the heuristic part in the DICOM dissector. So I
> read though the updates readme and some other dissector, and to my surprise,
> the return value of the heuristic still is supposed to be bo
I have dissector which works with fragments and reassembling by using
fragment_add_check() and process_reassembled_data() functions. Now I got
one problem. Each new fragment must be validated thought CRC32 calculation,
but not for itself but for all previous fragments together. Here is an
example:
I'm intending to re-enable the heuristic part in the DICOM dissector. So I
read though the updates readme and some other dissector, and to my surprise,
the return value of the heuristic still is supposed to be boolean, where the
static one returns int.
Implementation wise, by now I kind of o
12 matches
Mail list logo
