Attention is currently required from: laforge.

View Change

2 comments:

• Patchset:

  • Patch Set #2:

    in general I find it completely strange that the type of SCCP transport layer message is part of the […]

    yes exactly the reason why i was reluctant to complicate things here.
    I'm not sure where the DT1 came from originally...

• File src/osmo-bsc/osmo_bsc_msc.c:

  • Patch Set #2, Line 58: [MSC_CTR_BSSMAP_RX_DT1_HANDOVER_RQST] = {"bssmap:rx:dt1:handover:rqst", "Number of received BSSMAP DT1 HANDOVER RQST messages"},

    is the description and naming correct here? Are we really only counting those handover requests whi […]

    that's true. i was thinking though, should we really have separate counters for those cases? if i want to see the nr of ho req, do i want to see separate counters for those coming in the CR and those coming juuust after the CR?

    maybe it should be called _RX_CR_AND_DT1_?

    same thing for the Perform Location Request in the other patch. There we already have MSC_CTR_BSSMAP_RX_DT1_PERFORM_LOCATION_REQUEST so far accurately only counting the DT1 Perform Loc Req; because we so far don't count the CR ones at all. I guess we don't want to rename that counter.

    So then is the conclusion to after all do have separate counters:

    MSC_CTR_BSSMAP_RX_CR_HANDOVER_REQUEST
    MSC_CTR_BSSMAP_RX_DT1_HANDOVER_REQUEST
    MSC_CTR_BSSMAP_RX_CR_PERFORM_LOCATION_REQUEST
    MSC_CTR_BSSMAP_RX_DT1_PERFORM_LOCATION_REQUEST

    to benefit accuracy but not neccessarily practical use ... ?

To view, visit change 27371. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.