Attention is currently required from: fixeria.
pespin has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/34470?usp=email )
Change subject: abis_nm: handle NM_EV_SW_ACT_REP in ST_OP_DISABLED_{DEPENDENCY,OFFLINE} ......................................................................
Patch Set 1: Code-Review+1
(3 comments)
File src/osmo-bsc/nm_bts_sm_fsm.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/34470/comment/da7398ce_1b0e28c8 PS1, Line 123: case NM_EV_SW_ACT_REP:
Because no other events in this function call it, e.g. `NM_EV_SETUP_RAMP_READY` does not. […]
Ah well, it's an optimization because anyway in DEPENDENCY we pass allow_upstart=false so we'll never have to do anything, because there's no Get/SetAttr messages to send here so far.
But even if it's a noop, it may make sense to call the functions for the sake of completeness/similariy to other FSMs.
See what other FSMs are doing, you may also need to add it to NM_EV_STATE_CHG_REP too.
File src/osmo-bsc/nm_gprs_nsvc_fsm.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/34470/comment/a5396fb1_f7b83898 PS1, Line 179: case NM_EV_SW_ACT_REP:
It's not missing. What's missing is the `break`, so we fall-through.
ACK, though maybe I'd have it call explicitly, but up to you.
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/34470/comment/c6813346_b4a2fcfa PS1, Line 233: case NM_EV_SW_ACT_REP:
It's not missing. What's missing is the `break`, so we fall-through.
ACK, though maybe I'd have it call explicitly, but up to you.