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/.
Alexander Chemeris alexander.chemeris at gmail.comOn Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Ivan Kluchnikov <Ivan.Kluchnikov at fairwaves.ru> wrote: > 5. Yes, you are right, we can use PCH blocks when needed, it is good > question, why (master and jolly/trx) do not use PCH blocks when > needed. > Actually we already have function for that: > int paging_add_imm_ass(struct paging_state *ps, const uint8_t *data, > uint8_t len); > Moreover we should also determine when we should start to use PCH for > imm assign messages and what we should do with agch_max_queue_length > in this case, what do you think about it? I believe that we should start using PCH for IMM.ASS as soon as we exhaust capacity of the AGCH. Imho, IMM.ASS has higher priority than PCH, as paging will lead to IMM.ASS anyway, and if AGCH is congested, there is no point in sending any more paging. > 6. What do you finally think about calculating agch_max_queue_length? > What is the right way to calculate it from your point of view? You could also consider another approach. Instead of limiting the queue length - limit the age of IMM.ASS in the queue. I'm not sure about the current implementation, but in general you should be able to predict when an IMM.ASS is sent out and thus you could predict whether the phone will receive it or not. -- Regards, Alexander Chemeris. CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио http://fairwaves.ru