7 Apr
2016
7 Apr
'16
1:04 a.m.
conf->token = talloc_strdup(conf, token);
- conf->nr = nat->num_bsc;
+ conf->nr = number;
I think you could completely remove the num_bsc variable? It looks like its
sole use was to determine the next available BSC number without iterating the
list.
conf->nat = nat;
conf->max_endpoints = 32;
conf->paging_group = PAGIN_GROUP_UNASSIGNED;
@@ -205,6 +206,10 @@ void bsc_config_free(struct bsc_config *cfg)
llist_del(&cfg->entry);
rate_ctr_group_free(cfg->stats.ctrg);
talloc_free(cfg);
+ cfg->nat->num_bsc--;
+ if (cfg->nat->num_bsc < 0)
+ LOGP(DNAT, LOGL_ERROR, "Internal error while deallocating BSC "
+ "config: negative BSC index!\n");
}
I don't understand why you would add this check for negative BSC index.
The llist_del() should ensure that we don't double free a BSC, right?
Also nice would be to add a test case that has a non-null BSC number, to show
that having gaps in the numbering doesn't have side effects.
~Neels