On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:05:28AM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: A TS can be GSM_PCHAN_TCH_F_PDCH; those are the only ones for which we send a PDCH ACT message. We send a PDCH ACT message - during init (CHANNEL OML's state changed to enabled -> send PDCH ACT), - and upon channel release ack when pchan == GSM_PCHAN_TCH_F_PDCH. So the question is, when we receive a channel release ack, could that be the PDCH release and we switch PDCH right back on by accident? No, because we only receive a chan rel ack when the *TCH/F* is being released. That is because the PDCH release is initiated "internally" from the PDCH DEACT, and thus this condition in common/rsl.c rsl_tx_rf_rel_ack() catches on, which existed before dyn PDCH: if (lchan->rel_act_kind != LCHAN_REL_ACT_RSL) { LOGP(DRSL, LOGL_NOTICE, "%s not sending REL ACK\n", gsm_lchan_name(lchan)); return 0; } In rsl_rx_rf_chan_rel() the rel_act_kind is set to LCHAN_REL_ACT_RSL, but not in the rsl_rx_dyn_pdch(). This is analogous to the ip.access way -- the ip.access nanobts replies to a PDCH DEACT with a PDCH DEACT ACK and doesn't send a separate channel release ack. Maybe we could set rel_act_kind to some new LCHAN_REL_ACT_IPAC_DYN_PDCH for clarity? (But we shouldn't actually send a release ack, to stay compatible.) Even though it works as-is, we should indeed add another flag check: - We do check the flags that no ACT/DEACT is already pending; - And we do send a PDCH DEACT only if ts->flags & TS_F_PDCH_ACTIVE; - But we would send a PDCH ACT despite ts->flags & TS_F_PDCH_ACTIVE. This should never happen, but it would make sense to ensure that. ~Neels