Attention is currently required from: neels, laforge, fixeria, lynxis lazus. pespin has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788 )
Change subject: Add BTS setup ramping to prevent BSC overloading ......................................................................
Patch Set 16:
(7 comments)
Patchset:
PS16: I don't get why did you move the stuff to allstate again despite I explicitly told you not to do that. what's going on here? what's the rationale behind that? can you explain the problem in detail?
File include/osmocom/bsc/nm_common_fsm.h:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/35d21f2e_cea5a2b5 PS16, Line 41: NM_EV_RAMP_GO, /* BTS ramp allow to continue to configure */ "RAMP" is too generic here, maybe "NM_EV_SETUP_RAMO_GO".
File src/osmo-bsc/bsc_vty.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/2c93ced3_1906a31c PS4, Line 3100: bts-setup-ramping-step-interval
As pespin proposed I followed the example of access-control-class-ramping and be consistent with acc […]
I'm fine with current proposal. Oteherwise you end up with a command "bts-setup-ramping" and a command starting with the same, which is confusing. One could use "bts-setup-ramping enable (0|1)" too, but I don't see it's really needed. As pointed out we already have similar stuff with access-control-class-ramping.
File src/osmo-bsc/bsc_vty.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/65291110_a7d2345c PS16, Line 3131: DEFUN_ATTR(cfg_bsc_no_bts_setup_ramping, I'd move this one immediately below the "bts-setup-ramping" one, since it's its counterpart.
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/7f9d75f9_378a91a7 PS16, Line 3609: install_element(BSC_NODE, &cfg_bsc_bts_setup_ramping_cmd); See. here you put the 2 commands together (correct).
File src/osmo-bsc/bts_setup_ramp.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/55432c7d_b388ebc6 PS16, Line 86: { BTS_SETUP_RAMP_GO, "Go" }, (I find the "go" state a bit weird tbh, "Ready" would fit more imho).
File src/osmo-bsc/nm_bb_transc_fsm.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/29788/comment/3644716b_5c4660df PS16, Line 347: case NM_BB_TRANSC_ST_OP_DISABLED_DEPENDENCY: I'm still not getting why you keep putting this in the allstate. Put it in the relevant states like all the other stuff calling the configure_loop(). AFAIU this event can only come while the BTS is being configured.
-
pespin