This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/gerrit-log@lists.osmocom.org/.
laforge gerrit-no-reply at lists.osmocom.orglaforge has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/25432 )
Change subject: Add multithreading for the virtual trunk
......................................................................
Patch Set 37:
(4 comments)
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/25432/32/include/osmocom/mgcp/mgcp_endp.h
File include/osmocom/mgcp/mgcp_endp.h:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/25432/32/include/osmocom/mgcp/mgcp_endp.h@139
PS32, Line 139: chop_epname_prefix
exported function without mgcp_ prefix, maybe rather mgcp_epname_chop_prefix ?
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/25432/35/include/osmocom/mgcp/mgcp_trunk.h
File include/osmocom/mgcp/mgcp_trunk.h:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/25432/35/include/osmocom/mgcp/mgcp_trunk.h@30
PS35, Line 30: unsigned int
> because the useless comments are too long and this is kernel style formatting
I really don't get your argument. In all the Linux kernel and osmocom code I've seen, I never saw that kind of line break at this position. If your comments are too long to fit after the variable, put the comment above the variable declaration.
I really don't see why we need to discuss this again. Every one of us is reading osmocom code each day. It should be imprinted into everyone's brain by now?
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/25432/32/src/libosmo-mgcp/mgcp_protocol.c
File src/libosmo-mgcp/mgcp_protocol.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/25432/32/src/libosmo-mgcp/mgcp_protocol.c@395
PS32, Line 395: if (ti->dlcx_in_queue + 1 <= ti->eps_free) {
: ti->dlcx_in_queue++;
: thread_push_msg(rq->trunk, i, w);
when enqueueing a CRCX, why are we incrementing dlcx_in_queue? I don't understand that logic.
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/25432/35/src/libosmo-mgcp/mgcp_threads.c
File src/libosmo-mgcp/mgcp_threads.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/25432/35/src/libosmo-mgcp/mgcp_threads.c@199
PS35, Line 199: {
> same line
I agree, and don't get why this is something we do need to discuss. I doubt we have any existing code in osmo-* that formats it this way, so why is it even proposed?
--
To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/25432
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: osmo-mgw
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: I31be8253600c8af0a43c967d0d128f5ba7b16260
Gerrit-Change-Number: 25432
Gerrit-PatchSet: 37
Gerrit-Owner: Hoernchen <ewild at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder
Gerrit-Reviewer: pespin <pespin at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-CC: dexter <pmaier at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-CC: fixeria <vyanitskiy at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-CC: laforge <laforge at osmocom.org>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 09:52:27 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: Hoernchen <ewild at sysmocom.de>
Comment-In-Reply-To: pespin <pespin at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/gerrit-log/attachments/20211124/b74e4cef/attachment.htm>