On Aug 8, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote: > On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> >> On Aug 7, 2011, at 2:00 PM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote: >>> * "Capture all in promiscuous mode" can be checked even if not all >>> interfaces have this. >> >> There is no API in libpcap to inquire whether an interface supports >> promiscuous mode; before Michael and Irene's changes, "Capture in >> promiscuous mode" could be checked regardless of whether promiscuous mode >> actually works. > > Hmm, I have to rephrase this issue. This is what I really wanted to say: > * The global "Capture all in promiscuous mode" can be checked even if > some interfaces have promiscuous mode turned off. I think the global > checkbox should be turned off if some of the interfaces has > promiscuous mode turned off. The checkbox was intended to be a shortcut to select promiscuous mode or deselect it on all interfaces in a convenient way. Maybe we don't need it. We have the preferences for that... So get rid of it?
Best regards Michael > > > -- > Stig Bjørlykke > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe > ___________________________________________________________________________ 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-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
