Attention is currently required from: fixeria.
pespin has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmocom-bb/+/30097 )
Change subject: trxcon: move l1sched_logging_init() from l1sched.h to logging.h
......................................................................
Patch Set 1: Code-Review+1
--
To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmocom-bb/+/30097
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: osmocom-bb
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: I43e21ca8a14445548e1d359bb6f8a3e36cb65bfa
Gerrit-Change-Number: 30097
Gerrit-PatchSet: 1
Gerrit-Owner: fixeria <vyanitskiy(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder
Gerrit-Reviewer: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Attention: fixeria <vyanitskiy(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 10:10:57 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: No
Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Attention is currently required from: osmith, laforge.
pespin has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-iuh/+/30081 )
Change subject: asn1: fix visibility warnings from generated code
......................................................................
Patch Set 2:
(1 comment)
Patchset:
PS2:
> The asn1 files were already modified quite a bit to make asn1c digest them at all. […]
I don't think the modification is affecting size in any way, it seems it's only really definining names for the structs.
--
To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-iuh/+/30081
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: osmo-iuh
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: If84445ed2e0df604b581684dcf83f8520b7da84c
Gerrit-Change-Number: 30081
Gerrit-PatchSet: 2
Gerrit-Owner: osmith <osmith(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder
Gerrit-CC: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org>
Gerrit-CC: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Attention: osmith <osmith(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Attention: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 10:09:42 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org>
Comment-In-Reply-To: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Attention is currently required from: neels, laforge, fixeria, lynxis lazus.
pespin has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788 )
Change subject: Add BTS setup ramping to prevent BSC overloading
......................................................................
Patch Set 16:
(7 comments)
Patchset:
PS16:
I don't get why did you move the stuff to allstate again despite I explicitly told you not to do that. what's going on here? what's the rationale behind that? can you explain the problem in detail?
File include/osmocom/bsc/nm_common_fsm.h:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/35d21f2e_cea5a2b5
PS16, Line 41: NM_EV_RAMP_GO, /* BTS ramp allow to continue to configure */
"RAMP" is too generic here, maybe "NM_EV_SETUP_RAMO_GO".
File src/osmo-bsc/bsc_vty.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/2c93ced3_1906a31c
PS4, Line 3100: bts-setup-ramping-step-interval
> As pespin proposed I followed the example of access-control-class-ramping and be consistent with acc […]
I'm fine with current proposal. Oteherwise you end up with a command "bts-setup-ramping" and a command starting with the same, which is confusing.
One could use "bts-setup-ramping enable (0|1)" too, but I don't see it's really needed. As pointed out we already have similar stuff with access-control-class-ramping.
File src/osmo-bsc/bsc_vty.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/65291110_a7d2345c
PS16, Line 3131: DEFUN_ATTR(cfg_bsc_no_bts_setup_ramping,
I'd move this one immediately below the "bts-setup-ramping" one, since it's its counterpart.
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/7f9d75f9_378a91a7
PS16, Line 3609: install_element(BSC_NODE, &cfg_bsc_bts_setup_ramping_cmd);
See. here you put the 2 commands together (correct).
File src/osmo-bsc/bts_setup_ramp.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/55432c7d_b388ebc6
PS16, Line 86: { BTS_SETUP_RAMP_GO, "Go" },
(I find the "go" state a bit weird tbh, "Ready" would fit more imho).
File src/osmo-bsc/nm_bb_transc_fsm.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/3644716b_5c4660df
PS16, Line 347: case NM_BB_TRANSC_ST_OP_DISABLED_DEPENDENCY:
I'm still not getting why you keep putting this in the allstate. Put it in the relevant states like all the other stuff calling the configure_loop().
AFAIU this event can only come while the BTS is being configured.
--
To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: osmo-bsc
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: Id56dde6d58f3d0d20352f6c306598d2cccc6345d
Gerrit-Change-Number: 29788
Gerrit-PatchSet: 16
Gerrit-Owner: lynxis lazus <lynxis(a)fe80.eu>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder
Gerrit-Reviewer: fixeria <vyanitskiy(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-CC: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org>
Gerrit-CC: neels <nhofmeyr(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Attention: neels <nhofmeyr(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Attention: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org>
Gerrit-Attention: fixeria <vyanitskiy(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Attention: lynxis lazus <lynxis(a)fe80.eu>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 10:06:08 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: fixeria <vyanitskiy(a)sysmocom.de>
Comment-In-Reply-To: lynxis lazus <lynxis(a)fe80.eu>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment