Hi Sukchan,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:20:37PM +0900, Sukchan Lee wrote:
> I'm really surprising that nextepc can support such a large people.
What I'm personally quite happy is that I couldn't see any clear memory
leaks. Knowing from experience, this is one of the hardest tasks in
development of complex C-language software.
> 1. ogs_expect()
> I think that ogs_expect() is really good starting point to remove
> unnecessary ogs_assert().
> So, I added my version in ogslib() repository as below.
>
> #define ogs_expect(expr, fallback) \
> do { \
> if (ogs_likely(expr)) ; \
> else { \
> ogs_error("%s: Expectation `%s' failed.", OGS_FUNC, #expr); \
> fallback; \
> } \
> } while (0)
>
> Let me know if the above interface has a problem.
I don't see a problem, other than the code looking - from my point of view
"ugly". having return statements inside a macro argument is highly unusual,
AFAICT.
Also, in your version, how would a "print a message but do nothing else" look like?
I think it would be "ogs_expect(ret == OGS_OK, );" where the empty second argument
looks completely unlike C code at all...
I understand your motivation and I was also thinking about something like this
originally, but I decided against it. At least at the moment most of your
related functions return 'void' anyway, so my ogs_expect_or_return() worked fine.
I think as soon as you want to do something else but either nothing or return,
then you need to introduce a proper if-clause with error handling. That's why
I introduced only those two versions and not a flexible variant.
Ah! Now, I understand your intention. So I did rollback ogs_expect_or_return().
Thank you for introducing a good interface.
> 2. VTY/CTRL
> I'm happy if nextepc can have such a good VTY/CTL. Indeed, this is actually
> needed if someone would like to test nextepc on a large scale.
As indicated, the question is whether I should simply start adding Osmocom VTY
using libosmocore, or if we should spend some more time looking for alternatives
or even designing + writing some new, better system and then introduce this to
nextepc. I'm a bit undecided here at this point. Take the quick route or the long
path...
Basically, I planned to implement HTTP/JSON for this part(e.g. GET /ue, POST /logging). And also, I'd like to monitor the status in the WebUI. However, to do so, we need to create one process to handle it. IMHO, it will take a long to implement it. I also don't know which one is better for us.
> 3. Logging
> I agree that IMSI, APN context is needed when logging. So, I think
> mme_log()/sgw_log()/... needs to be introduced. And also, I saw a fix of
> the freeDiameter logging. How about merging it to master branch. Please
> github pull request if you agree.
It's probably even more like a mme_ue_log() or something like that, because you
may have different objects/structs which provide loggign context.
In Osmocom we have introduced log macros like LOG_MSC_A(), LOG_MNCC_CALL(), lOG_MSUB()
where the first argument is typically the 'object' providing context. Those macros then
expand to a call to the generic logging macro/function.
I saw your work! LOG macro with context adds the prefix logging. I will refer your work when I improve a logging.
--
- Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)