Attention is currently required from: laforge, pespin. neels has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hnbgw/+/33169 ) Change subject: fix umts_cell_id_name(): show CID ...................................................................... Patch Set 3: (3 comments) Commit Message: https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hnbgw/+/33169/comment/cd049b6e_17c7f84f PS3, Line 12: Use OTC_SELECT

That's usually my opinion too, but since I have the feeling I'm usually the only one against this I […] My opinion is firmly with dynamic allocation.

IIRC there is a log line that prints two distinct cell IDs. For that alone, i prefer the dynamic approach. But I'm really surprised to hear any praise for static buffers at all. I thought that the consensus and aim is to get away from static buffers, to get away from their notorious disadvantages: - each static buffer can be used only once per va (LOGP(), printf()), or we get bugs and misleading logs that are hard to spot and identify as such. - there is a distinct static buffer for every API / API-function, so the vast vast majority of static buffers just sit around 99.999% of the time simply taking up space and not being used. - truncation / a static buffer needs to be as large as the largest string that is at all possible. A long while back I proposed a kind of static ring buffer that alleviates the worst disadvantages of static buffers, but the code review answer was the OTC_SELECT, which after all I agree is a very elegant solution. So now we go back from elegant to cumbersome??? If you mean to imply that this is inefficient and expensive related to the rest of osmo-hnbgw, then kindly provide the performance measurements that prove it. <- the standard answer for all premature optimization requests. Patchset: PS3: I would gladly change my mind, but so far am not convinced... File src/osmo-hnbgw/hnbgw.c: https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hnbgw/+/33169/comment/9d8261c8_54408599 PS2, Line 348: return talloc_asprintf(OTC_SELECT, "%u-%u-L%u-R%u-S%u-C%u", ucid->mcc, ucid->mnc, ucid->lac, ucid->rac,

I hope this is not called everytime we log a line :) i don't see a problem if it is. We do these kinds of function calls as well as OTC_SELECT allocations A LOT for very many log statements.

Noteworthy: producing log lines and calling this function is avoided entirely when the logging category is silenced. So if a user has performance issues, they can crank up the log levels. If you mean to imply that this is inefficient and expensive related to the rest of osmo-hnbgw, then kindly provide the performance measurements that prove it. <- the standard answer for all premature optimization requests. -- To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hnbgw/+/33169 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings Gerrit-Project: osmo-hnbgw Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: Id903b8579ded8b908e644808e440d373bcca8da4 Gerrit-Change-Number: 33169 Gerrit-PatchSet: 3 Gerrit-Owner: neels <nhofmeyr@sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder Gerrit-Reviewer: pespin <pespin@sysmocom.de> Gerrit-CC: laforge <laforge@osmocom.org> Gerrit-Attention: laforge <laforge@osmocom.org> Gerrit-Attention: pespin <pespin@sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 21:22:45 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Comment-In-Reply-To: laforge <laforge@osmocom.org> Comment-In-Reply-To: pespin <pespin@sysmocom.de> Gerrit-MessageType: comment