-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi, List!
It seems not possible to send SMS anymore with the yesterday's version of OpenBSC (0.9.0.889-f7a1c). I tryed with another old version (0.9.0.531-b938) and it works (same NanoBTS, same configuration). If I activate the log on Telnet I get:
<0002> gsm_04_08.c:621 <- CM SERVICE REQUEST serv_type=0x04 mi_type=0x04 M(1552623826) <0012> db.c:159 DBI: 1: ambiguous column name: updated <0002> gsm_04_08.c:572 -> CM SERVICE ACK <0012> db.c:159 DBI: 1: ambiguous column name: updated <0004> abis_rsl.c:1313 RF release on (bts=0,trx=0,ts=2,ss=0) but state ACTIVE <0004> abis_rsl.c:1024 (bts=0,trx=0,ts=2,ss=0) CHAN REL ACK but state ACTIVE <0004> abis_rsl.c:1313 RF release on (bts=0,trx=0,ts=2,ss=0) but state NONE <0004> abis_rsl.c:1024 (bts=0,trx=0,ts=2,ss=0) CHAN REL ACK but state NONE
on the old version, and:
<0002> gsm_04_08.c:770 <- CM SERVICE REQUEST serv_type=0x04 mi_type=0x04 M(1910630704) <0002> gsm_04_08.c:695 -> CM SERVICE ACK <0004> abis_rsl.c:1350 RF release on (bts=0,trx=0,ts=2,ss=0) but state ACTIVE <0004> abis_rsl.c:1039 (bts=0,trx=0,ts=2,ss=0) CHAN REL ACK but state ACTIVE <0004> abis_rsl.c:1350 RF release on (bts=0,trx=0,ts=2,ss=0) but state NONE <0004> abis_rsl.c:1039 (bts=0,trx=0,ts=2,ss=0) CHAN REL ACK but state NONE
on the new one.
I see, the line 572 (or 695) in gsm_04_08.c, and it is the same function (gsm48_tx_mm_serv_ack), but with other parameters.
Has someone else the same problem? How can I solve it?
Thanks a lot - -- _______________________________________________________________________ Luca Bertoncello Entwicklung Mail: bertoncello@netzing.de
NETZING Solutions AG Tel.: 0351/41381 - 0 Kesselsdorfer Str. 216, 01169 Dresden Fax: 0351/41381 - 12 HRB 18926 / Ust.ID DE211326547 Mail: netzing.ag@netzing.de _______________________________________________________________________
On 06/23/2010 03:09 PM, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
<0002> gsm_04_08.c:621 <- CM SERVICE REQUEST serv_type=0x04 mi_type=0x04 M(1552623826) <0012> db.c:159 DBI: 1: ambiguous column name: updated
is this noise? at least this looks like a difference to the old version...
Has someone else the same problem? How can I solve it?
You could try git bisect and see which commit broke that, but I think one should understand the "new" DBI error first?
Could you also give us the "old" and "new" git hashes so we can take a look at what changed?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:18:41 +0800 schrieb Holger Freyther zecke@selfish.org:
On 06/23/2010 03:09 PM, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
<0002> gsm_04_08.c:621 <- CM SERVICE REQUEST serv_type=0x04 mi_type=0x04 M(1552623826) <0012> db.c:159 DBI: 1: ambiguous column name: updated
is this noise? at least this looks like a difference to the old version...
Do you mean "ambiguous column name: updated"? This is not noise, this is another bug. See my E-Mail on 18.06.2010 and then my solving proposal on 22.06.2010. The "new" version uses my patch (I'll send it to the list, if I'm sure it works). I tried without my patch, too (last version from git, 0.9.0.890-2788), and it does not work, too.
Has someone else the same problem? How can I solve it?
You could try git bisect and see which commit broke that, but I think one should understand the "new" DBI error first?
I think it, too! See my E-Mails about this problem... :D
Could you also give us the "old" and "new" git hashes so we can take a look at what changed?
Of course, but you have to say me how can I do it... I don't know git so good... :(
Thanks - -- _______________________________________________________________________ Luca Bertoncello Entwicklung Mail: bertoncello@netzing.de
NETZING Solutions AG Tel.: 0351/41381 - 0 Kesselsdorfer Str. 216, 01169 Dresden Fax: 0351/41381 - 12 HRB 18926 / Ust.ID DE211326547 Mail: netzing.ag@netzing.de _______________________________________________________________________
On 06/23/2010 03:35 PM, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
Hi Luca,
I do not have a lot of spare time today. So let us please start over and collect the information you have right now.
What are you doing? Please provide instructions that can be easily repeated. This should include if your phone did a successful Location Update (LU) and then what you actually tried to do.
What do you expect? Well, we kind of know that. You try to send a SMS from the phone and then... well nothing...
What result did you get? Well, SMS sending from the phone does not work.
And then please make sure to provide the full log (e.g. start bsc_hack with -e1 and attach that in both cases) and also record a trace with tcpdump of successful and unsuccessful sending...
PS:I just submitted a SMS from my N900 to an imaginary subscriber, I have the log attached...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:40:35 +0800 schrieb Holger Hans Peter Freyther holger@freyther.de:
I do not have a lot of spare time today. So let us please start over and collect the information you have right now.
What are you doing? Please provide instructions that can be easily repeated. This should include if your phone did a successful Location Update (LU) and then what you actually tried to do.
I just start the last version of OpenBSC. Two mobiles phone are logged on my network. I can call them and speak, without any problem.
What do you expect? Well, we kind of know that. You try to send a SMS from the phone and then... well nothing...
Exactly! I send an SMS from a mobile to the other. It takes a very long time, then said me, that it was impossible to send the SMS. In the DB (table SMS) I find at least 3 SMS, with the content I tried to send.
What result did you get? Well, SMS sending from the phone does not work.
Exact! :D
And then please make sure to provide the full log (e.g. start bsc_hack with -e1 and attach that in both cases) and also record a trace with tcpdump of successful and unsuccessful sending...
Here as Attachment the Logs of OpenBSC and TCPDump (zipped because of the size).
Thanks a lot! - -- _______________________________________________________________________ Luca Bertoncello Entwicklung Mail: bertoncello@netzing.de
NETZING Solutions AG Tel.: 0351/41381 - 0 Kesselsdorfer Str. 216, 01169 Dresden Fax: 0351/41381 - 12 HRB 18926 / Ust.ID DE211326547 Mail: netzing.ag@netzing.de _______________________________________________________________________
On 06/23/2010 05:08 PM, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
Exact! :D
The easiest is to use git bisect.
git bisect start -- openbsc (to limit it to that subdir)
git bisect good GOOD_REVISION (the sha1 not the stuff before the hyphen) git bisect bad BAD_REVISION..
then repeat...
$ make $ test_it...
and then either $ git bisect good or git bisect bad...
at the end git will show you the commit that introduced the problem...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:59:47 +0800 schrieb Holger Hans Peter Freyther holger@freyther.de:
On 06/23/2010 05:08 PM, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
Exact! :D
The easiest is to use git bisect.
git bisect start -- openbsc (to limit it to that subdir)
git bisect good GOOD_REVISION (the sha1 not the stuff before the hyphen) git bisect bad BAD_REVISION..
then repeat...
$ make $ test_it...
and then either $ git bisect good or git bisect bad...
at the end git will show you the commit that introduced the problem...
Hi,
I don't know git. Could you please help me and say how can I get the two revision hashes? I just know the BSC version numbers.
Thanks - -- _______________________________________________________________________ Luca Bertoncello Entwicklung Mail: bertoncello@netzing.de
NETZING Solutions AG Tel.: 0351/41381 - 0 Kesselsdorfer Str. 216, 01169 Dresden Fax: 0351/41381 - 12 HRB 18926 / Ust.ID DE211326547 Mail: netzing.ag@netzing.de _______________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:46:32 +0200 schrieb Sylvain Munaut 246tnt@gmail.com:
You could try git bisect and see which commit broke that, but I think one should understand the "new" DBI error first?
From the original message I thought those error were in the old one but not the new.
Just because, in the new version, I applied a patch from mine, to correct this error (just added a table name to the column names)...
But in any case, the OP can fix the sql. The OP seem to have a new/more picky version of sqlite. Before in case of ambiguous column name, it took the one from the first table in the FROM list. (not sql standard but that's why it didn't matter before).
I know, it is NOT SQL-standard. And this is the reason, because I get this error. But I think, the program should use syntactically correct SQL-queries, to avoid these problems. I'll send my patch in a separated E-Mail (I hope today).
Could you also give us the "old" and "new" git hashes so we can take a look at what changed?
The hash (short) are in the version string, the log is :
git log b938..f7a1c
Aha! Then I sent it already! The old version, the "sms sending version", is 531-b938, and the new, the "non sms sending version", 889-f7a1c.
Thanks - -- _______________________________________________________________________ Luca Bertoncello Entwicklung Mail: bertoncello@netzing.de
NETZING Solutions AG Tel.: 0351/41381 - 0 Kesselsdorfer Str. 216, 01169 Dresden Fax: 0351/41381 - 12 HRB 18926 / Ust.ID DE211326547 Mail: netzing.ag@netzing.de _______________________________________________________________________
-
Holger Freyther -
Holger Hans Peter Freyther -
Luca Bertoncello -
Nordin -
Sylvain Munaut