| Message ID | 1432637591-24130-1-git-send-email-kluchnikovi@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
> On 26 May 2015, at 12:53, Ivan Kluchnikov <kluchnikovi@gmail.com> wrote: HI, > setup_trig_pag_evt function can receive parameter conn = NULL, if T3113 expires. ah thank you very much for the patch and you are obviously right that in case the paging times out there will be no subscriber connection. > --- > openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c b/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c > index 5609602..d45ae08 100644 > --- a/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c > +++ b/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c > @@ -1389,13 +1389,12 @@ static int setup_trig_pag_evt(unsigned int hooknum, unsigned int event, > struct gsm_subscriber_connection *conn = _conn; > struct gsm_trans *transt = _transt; > > - OSMO_ASSERT(!transt->conn); Is there any reason to move this assert as well? setup_trig_pag_evt should be called exactly once right? And there should be no pre-existing subscriber connection? Do you have time to re-test with just moving one of the two asserts? thank you holger
Hi Holger, Yes, you are right, I retested this patch and it is enough to move only OSMO_ASSERT(conn). I updated patch for this issue. 2015-05-27 13:09 GMT+03:00 Holger Freyther <holger@freyther.de>: > > > On 26 May 2015, at 12:53, Ivan Kluchnikov <kluchnikovi@gmail.com> wrote: > > > HI, > > > setup_trig_pag_evt function can receive parameter conn = NULL, if T3113 > expires. > > ah thank you very much for the patch and you are obviously right that in > case the > paging times out there will be no subscriber connection. > > > > --- > > openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c | 5 ++--- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c > b/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c > > index 5609602..d45ae08 100644 > > --- a/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c > > +++ b/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c > > @@ -1389,13 +1389,12 @@ static int setup_trig_pag_evt(unsigned int > hooknum, unsigned int event, > > struct gsm_subscriber_connection *conn = _conn; > > struct gsm_trans *transt = _transt; > > > > - OSMO_ASSERT(!transt->conn); > > Is there any reason to move this assert as well? setup_trig_pag_evt should > be > called exactly once right? And there should be no pre-existing subscriber > connection? > Do you have time to re-test with just moving one of the two asserts? > > > thank you > > holger
> On 29 May 2015, at 10:56, Ivan Kluchnikov <Ivan.Kluchnikov@fairwaves.ru> wrote: > > Hi Holger, > > Yes, you are right, I retested this patch and it is enough to move only OSMO_ASSERT(conn). > I updated patch for this issue. thanks, I cherry-picked it from your branch. holger
diff --git a/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c b/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c index 5609602..d45ae08 100644 --- a/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c +++ b/openbsc/src/libmsc/gsm_04_08.c @@ -1389,13 +1389,12 @@ static int setup_trig_pag_evt(unsigned int hooknum, unsigned int event, struct gsm_subscriber_connection *conn = _conn; struct gsm_trans *transt = _transt; - OSMO_ASSERT(!transt->conn); - OSMO_ASSERT(conn); - /* check all tranactions (without lchan) for subscriber */ switch (event) { case GSM_PAGING_SUCCEEDED: DEBUGP(DCC, "Paging subscr %s succeeded!\n", transt->subscr->extension); + OSMO_ASSERT(!transt->conn); + OSMO_ASSERT(conn); /* Assign lchan */ transt->conn = conn; /* send SETUP request to called party */