Re: [Ethereal-dev] Back to performance...

[Ian Schorr <ethereal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So how do we move forward with this?  So far no one seems to disagree.

Should we allow tap authors more time to respond?  Does someone need to 
do a more thorough review code to determine if no taps do, in fact, 
depend on the current display filter?  Should we make a design decision 
that tap listeners should not depend on the current display filter, or 
a seperate function should be created (or perhaps my "retap" flag 
should be replaced with something that is a bit more intelligent, and 
allows only specific taps to be rebuilt if needed)?

Ian

On Jul 27, 2004, at 2:35 AM, Guy Harris wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 04:18:31PM -0400, Ian Schorr wrote:
> > Still a bit concerned that the taps are being rebuilt when changing
> > display filter and other events that really should only change the
> > packet list, though.  What if we did something simple like this (see
> > attached patch against latest SVN)?
>
> That sounds reasonable *if*, in fact, refiltering the display *doesn't*
> change any taps.
>
> It looks as if "tap_push_tapped_queue()" would get called regardless of
> whether the packet passes the filter or not, and the taps have their 
> own
> filters, so, unless it's considered a bug, rather than a feature, that
> the display filter has no effect on the taps, that sounds like the 
> right
> thing to do.