Hi Jaap, Actually, there is one more addition to epan/proto.c: proto_tree_add_bitmask_text(), more flexible version of proto_tree_add_bitmask().
Would it help if I separate these enhancements to common code from the dissector enhancements and submit them separately? Best regards, Alexey. On 13 January 2008 Jaap Keuter wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > Indeed you've made an enhancement to the IPMI dissector. But also to > the type system, creating BASE_CUSTOM. All in all it's an invasive > patch which has to be considered carefully before inclusion. > There's some more interesting stuff waiting in the patch queue, so > they won't get lost; they will be addressed when someone can spend > the necessary spare time on it. > > Thanks for your patience, > Jaap > > Alexey Neyman wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Some time ago, I submitted enhancements to IPMI dissector (bug > > #2048). I updated the patch to apply against more recent revision > > (24072). Could it be reviewed/integrated? > > > > Also, I noted that there are some enhancements suggested in context > > of the bug #1970. Currently, the changes suggested in patch mostly > > duplicate the code contained in epan/dissectors/packet-ipmi.c, the > > only difference being that the IPMB messages (which that plugin > > dissects) do not have IPMI session wrapper. This patch splits IPMI > > session header parsing from parsing the IPMI messages themselves. > > This way, the plugin in bug #1970 could reuse the "generic" > > dissector for IPMI. > > > > Best regards, > > Alexey. > > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
