On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 00:05, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2004, at 3:19 PM, Christian Kreibich wrote:
>
> > would you guys consider changing the return value of the pcap_handler
> > callbacks to
> >
> > typedef int (*pcap_handler)(u_char *, const struct pcap_pkthdr *,
> > const u_char *);
> >
> > so that the callback gets a chance to stop a pcap_loop() or
> > pcap_dispatch() iteration, say when returning 0 as opposed to 1?
>
> We might, if we also add new APIs to support the new callback.
Yeah, sure. I probably should have said pcap1_loop() and
pcap1_dispatch().
[snip]
> Does "pcap_breakloop()" not work? (It's not present in pre-0.8
> versions of libpcap - but a different callback API isn't present in
> them, either, but it also isn't present in 0.8[.x].)
Oh, I hadn't seen that one because I'm on an older version. Sorry. If
you plan to keep that then I guess it's nicer to stick to pcap_handler
returning void to avoid API bloat...
Thanks,
Christian.
--
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~cpk25
http://www.whoop.org
-
This is the TCPDUMP workers list. It is archived at
http://www.tcpdump.org/lists/workers/index.html
To unsubscribe use mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
