2013/7/25 Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se>
Ivan Kluchnikov wrote:
This is new version of patch for review and merge:
- more user-friendly interface for command: rach access-control-class 2 barred rach access-control-class 11 allowed
Yes, much better than before, but perhaps spend the half hour it takes to write that %d-%d parser using sscanf?
You are welcome :) If you implement %d-%d parser, I will change style of this VTY command.
+++ b/openbsc/src/libbsc/bsc_vty.c .. @@ -2059,6 +2067,51 @@ DEFUN(cfg_bts_rach_ec_allowed, cfg_bts_rach_ec_allowed_cmd, return CMD_SUCCESS; }
+DEFUN(cfg_bts_rach_ac_class, cfg_bts_rach_ac_class_cmd, + "rach access-control-class (0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|11|12|13|14|15) (barred|allowed)", + RACH_STR + "Set access control class\n" + "Access control class 0\n" + "Access control class 1\n" + "Access control class 2\n" + "Access control class 3\n" + "Access control class 4\n" + "Access control class 5\n" + "Access control class 6\n" + "Access control class 7\n" + "Access control class 8\n" + "Access control class 9\n" + "Access control class 11 for PLMN use\n" + "Access control class 12 for security services\n" + "Access control class 13 for public utilities (e.g. water/gas suppliers)\n" + "Access control class 14 for emergency services\n" + "Access control class 15 for PLMN staff\n" + "barred to use access control class\n" + "allowed to use access control class\n") +{
Is that long array of strings correct?
I think, yes, because it works. Do you know other way to do it?
//Peter
-- Regards, Ivan Kluchnikov. http://fairwaves.ru