20 Nov
2009
20 Nov
'09
1:11 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:19:55AM +0100, Holger Freyther wrote:
On Monday 16 November 2009 18:52:32 Andreas.Eversberg
wrote:
they are still there to remind me that we should switch back to move some of the
initialization into the software activate report (see the other mail)
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
diff --git a/openbsc/src/bsc_init.c
b/openbsc/src/bsc_init.c
index 815fe2b..3b451b1 100644
--- a/openbsc/src/bsc_init.c
+++ b/openbsc/src/bsc_init.c
@@ -433,8 +433,8 @@ int nm_state_event(enum nm_evt evt, u_int8_t
obj_class, void *obj,
static int sw_activ_rep(struct msgb *mb)
{
struct abis_om_fom_hdr *foh = msgb_l3(mb);
- struct gsm_bts *bts = mb->trx->bts;
- struct gsm_bts_trx *trx = gsm_bts_trx_num(bts,
foh->obj_inst.trx_nr);
+// struct gsm_bts *bts = mb->trx->bts;
+// struct gsm_bts_trx *trx = gsm_bts_trx_num(bts,
foh->obj_inst.trx_nr);
was this intentional? Is the warning that these are unused? In this case we
will just nuke the variable declaration.