Re: [Wireshark-commits] rev 45189: /trunk/ /trunk/: cfile.h file.c

[Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jakub Zawadzki
<darkjames-ws () darkjames pl> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 06:32:26PM +0200, Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
> > If we want to have bug #6208 fixed in 1.x we need to revert r45189 + do:
> > https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6208#c9
> >
> > I'm not sure if I have time for writting such patch, but If anyone write one,
> > I can review.
>
> Attaching patch for testing, still I have one XXX, to quote:
>
> +  if (cf->count < frames_count && framenum <= cf->count) {
> +    /* XXX, what we should do when new frames were received during rescaning but user clicked abort?
> +     *   - call packet_list_append() for all new frames?
> +     *   - just warn user?
> +     */
> +  }

Just looking at this for the first time, but shouldn't the first part
of the conditional be "cf->count > frames_count"? cf->count would be
the one that gets incremented on new frames, so there should never be
a case where it's less than frames_count, only greater or equal.

To answer the actual question though - I don't think we should do
anything. Existing frames that we haven't processed yet are simply not
displayed when the user hits abort, so I think it's perfectly sane for
us to not display any new frames in that case either.

Evan
___________________________________________________________________________
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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe