This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Jacob Erlbeck jerlbeck at sysmocom.deOn 09/10/2013 11:06 AM, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:07:32AM +0200, Jacob Erlbeck wrote: >> /* return parent node */ >> -/* MUST eventually converge on CONFIG_NODE */ >> +/* >> + * MUST eventually converge either on CONFIG_NODE for every config node or >> + * on CONFIG_ENABLE for every other user defined node. >> + */ > The comment is wrong. There is no CONFIG_ENABLE node but the You're right, it's ENABLE_NODE of course. > comment > sounds dangerous too. The ENABLE_NODE might be password protected and > I would like to avoid a situation where we come from a 'child' of the > VIEW_NODE and end in 'ENABLE_NODE'. The implementation cares about that (at least for the base nodes). It is not checked whether the go_parent callback does this and there isn't a way yet, to distinguish a view node from an enable node (since there is only is_config_child()/is_config_node() ). The comment isn't quite explicit about that, but 'user defined node' was meant to refer to node (id's) above CONFIG_NODE, and there aren't any of these nodes that are neither config nor enable (yet). OTOH, since that doesn't seem to be clear enough I'm going to reword it. Jacob