Attention is currently required from: laforge, pespin, dexter.
9 comments:
Commit Message:
Patch Set #5, Line 15: RBS) are configured.
how about an osmo-bsc with one Ericsson RBS co-located, and then a bunch of other types of BTS with no BSC-co-located PCU? The position of the Ericsson RBS could be anywhere in the bts_list. The reasoning seems to be exclusively about Ericsson RBS.
Patchset:
You are still preventing to configure more than 1 ericsson BTS here. […]
pau, can you point out the place? i don't see it...
File src/osmo-bsc/pcu_sock.c:
Patch Set #5, Line 810: llist_for_each_entry(bts, &state->net->bts_list, list) {
could there be several RBS with several separate co-located PCUs, each with their own pcu_sock? This would then disconnect all of them if only one disconnects.
I'm asking because in pcu_sock_init() it seems like one pcu_sock is assigned to a single bts
bts->pcu_state = state
so seems to me the relation of pcu_sock to bts should be 1:1. Here it is handled as 1:N instead.
(unusual whitespace after the type cast brace)
(would prefer if the return val were named 'fd', because 'man accept' says
RETURN VALUE
On success, these system calls return a file descriptor [...]
and below "close(rc)" looks weird, "close(fd)" would make more sense)
Patch Set #5, Line 966: if (conn_bfd->fd >= 0) {
should this check happen before accept(), so we don't even accept a new connection when there already is one
Patch Set #5, Line 969: osmo_fd_read_disable(&state->listen_bfd);
so this disables the other active connection??
Patch Set #5, Line 986: llist_for_each_entry(bts, &state->net->bts_list, list) {
same question as above, pcu to bts relation is 1:1 or 1:N? I guess you should pass the bts pointer that the pcu socket belongs to in pcu_sock_state and only act on that specific bts here.
Patch Set #5, Line 1032: bts->pcu_state = state;
here it is pcu to bts relation 1:1?
To view, visit change 31618. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.