Ethereal-dev: RE: [Ethereal-dev] Patch to expose OPC/DPC from MTP3, SCCP preferences

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Index Thread Index Other Months All Mailing Lists
Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next
From: "Michael Lum" <mlum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:44:02 -0800
OK, that is what I have done.

Different hf_ for display purposes but the same name (mtp3.opc) for
filtering purposes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guy Harris [mailto:guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:20 PM
> To: Jeff Morriss
> Cc: mlum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ethereal Development List
> Subject: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Patch to expose OPC/DPC from MTP3, SCCP
> preferences
>
>
>
> On Dec 5, 2003, at 10:43 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
>
> > It's been a while since I actually worked on a dissector, but I think
> > it's okay to have 2 hf_ variables that correspond to the same filter
> > string.
>
> Yes, it is.  We use that to, for example, handle some fields in X.25,
> as their bitfield masks are different depending on whether you're using
> mod-8 or mod-128 mode.
>
> >  E.g. something like:
> >
> >>     { & hf_mtp3_itu_opc,
> >>       { "OPC", "mtp3.opc",                 FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, NULL,
> >> ITU_OPC_MASK,
> >>               "", HFILL }},
> >>     { & hf_mtp3_ansi_opc,
> >>       { "DPC", "mtp3.opc",
>
> (Presumably you meant "OPC", not "DPC".)
>
> >>               FT_UINT32, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0x0,
> >>               "", HFILL }},
>
> So in that case a particular item in the protocol tree would either be
> associated with hf_mtp3_itu_opc or hf_mtp3_ansi_opc.  However, a filter
> expression that contained "mtp3.opc" would work with the item
> regardless of which of those particular hf_ variables was used.