BTS initialization / OML / sequencing
Holger Hans Peter Freyther
holger at freyther.de
Tue Jun 22 03:35:32 CEST 2010
On 06/21/2010 11:54 PM, Harald Welte wrote:
> At the moment I'm slightly more inclined to actually go for '2', since it is
> a cleaner solution from my point of view.
> What do you think?
The consequences for threading are big. As we can do OML and the BTS
might pass away (bsc_unregister_fd) we need locking at quite some places
and these include
- msgb_enqueue/msgb_dequeue (or shortly before)
- bsc_unregister_fd (combined with thread cancellation for the
And we would always have a OML thread per BTS? And an OML msg with 0xff,
0xff, 0xff would go to the BTS holding the BCCH?
I see how the blocking semantic of an opstart and such is very
appealing, we do not need to worry about the queue but the kernel will
queue messages for us.
More information about the OpenBSC