On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:27 AM, Dario Lombardo <lom...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:49 PM Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > >> Should we, instead, get rid of the scope arguments to those functions and, >> instead, have separate functions, one of which serves the original purpose, >> using file scope, and one of which serves this new purpose, using >> pinfo->pool scope? > > It looks neat, but I see 2 issues: > > 1) grep -r "p_\(add\|get\|remove\)_proto_data" ../epan/dissectors/* | wc -l > gives me 881 calls to those functions. It could be harsh to change all of them
Time for me to learn Coccinelle: http://coccinelle.lip6.fr and download and install it. (An ed script could probably do a lot of it, but it's past time to get Coccinelle into my toolkit.) > as well as breaking compatibility with existing code outside wireshark > (plugins?). We don't guarantee API compatibility between major or dot releases, only between dot-dot releases. > 2) are we sure that a call to (eg.) > p_proto_add_data_with_file_scope_or_another_name() is more meaningful than > p_proto_add_data(wmem_file_scope(), ...)? How could those 2 functions be > named to recall the actual goal? {add,get}_persistent_proto_data() {add,get}_per_layer_packet_info() or something such as that. The scope isn't relevant, the *purpose of the data* is relevant, and dictates the scope to use. (It also removes the possibility to get the scope wrong, using a scope not supported by the routines.) ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe