Attention is currently required from: laforge, osmith, pespin. fixeria has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmocom-bb/+/34514?usp=email ) Change subject: modem: grr: implement RACH.req retransmission ...................................................................... Patch Set 2: (2 comments) File src/host/layer23/src/modem/grr.c: https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmocom-bb/+/34514/comment/6d657d3c_3936723d PS2, Line 470: rr->n_chan_req = GRR_PACKET_ACCESS_MAX_CHAN_REQ; This field is part of the existing code/API, I am simply using it here. I agree that it would make the field more self-explaining, but renaming it is definitely a separate patch. https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmocom-bb/+/34514/comment/ae0a77e7_1f85cba8 PS2, Line 659: static void grr_st_packet_access_action(struct osmo_fsm_inst *fi, I see nothing wrong with adding `_action` to an action callback, as well as adding `_onenter` and `_onleave`. This clearly indicates the purpose of a function. And this is also the case for the `trxcon_fsm` and some FSMs in osmo-bsc.git, for instance. -- To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmocom-bb/+/34514?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings Gerrit-Project: osmocom-bb Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: Iab6d9147f6e0aeb99239affacf318a3897fd6ffe Gerrit-Change-Number: 34514 Gerrit-PatchSet: 2 Gerrit-Owner: fixeria <vyanitskiy(a)sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder Gerrit-Reviewer: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: osmith <osmith(a)sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Attention: osmith <osmith(a)sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Attention: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org> Gerrit-Attention: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 16:57:04 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Comment-In-Reply-To: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de> Gerrit-MessageType: comment