Attention is currently required from: neels, msuraev.
pespin has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hnbgw/+/32323 )
Change subject: cnpool: allow separate cs7 for IuPS and IuCS ......................................................................
Patch Set 8: Code-Review+1
(2 comments)
File include/osmocom/hnbgw/hnbgw.h:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hnbgw/+/32323/comment/715a8070_694fca97 PS8, Line 87: DECLARE_HASHTABLE(hnbgw_context_map_by_conn_id, 6); maybe add a comment what's going to be added in here (struct hnbgw_cnlink?).
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hnbgw/+/32323/comment/fc066f56_0b15aa32 PS8, Line 133: if (!cnlink->hnbgw_sccp_user) can this really happen? Is it expected to happen? I find it confusing when seeing all these checks when learning a code base because I then don't know if it is expected from the author that the cnlink will have no sccp_user at times, or it's simply over-protecting code.
If this should not happen, in general I'd go for OSMO_ASSERT, to avoid confusing others.