Any comments? On 8/30/06, Dziugas Baltrunas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi list,this is somehow strange that bug which currently floods SMSCs hasn't been solved for months. Ok, back to the proposed solution. What's bad with the one below? /// diff -u -r1.88 bb_smscconn.c --- bb_smscconn.c 14 May 2006 00:47:24 -0000 1.88 +++ bb_smscconn.c 30 Aug 2006 13:10:38 -0000 @@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ void bb_smscconn_send_failed(SMSCConn *conn, Msg *sms, int reason, Octstr *reply) { - if (sms->sms.split_parts != NULL) { + if (sms->sms.split_parts != NULL && reason != SMSCCONN_FAILED_TEMPORARILY) { handle_split(conn, sms, reason); octstr_destroy(reply); return; /// I tested it and it works - sms-resend-retry and sms-resend-freq figures are taken into account as appropriate. What's bad with this patch? I don't know. bb_smscconn.c:handle_split() has the following code: /// /* * If temporarely failed, try again immediately but only if connection active. * Because if connection is not active we will loop for ever here consuming 100% CPU * time due to internal queue cleanup in smsc module that call bb_smscconn_failed. */ if (reason == SMSCCONN_FAILED_TEMPORARILY && smscconn_status(conn) == SMSCCONN_ACTIVE && smscconn_send(conn, msg) == 0) { /* destroy this message because it will be duplicated in smsc module */ msg_destroy(msg); return; } /// Why should we try again immediately (or actually forever)? To be "friendly" and try to deliver all the split parts in the shot? Well, the result is often contrary - single split message falls in the never-ending loop (or actually when SMSC accepts it instead spawning Message Queue Full or similar) and all newly arrived messages are waiting in the outgoing_sms queue. Does it weight out or at least compete with single attempt to deliver single concatenated message friendly? I guess it is not. I'm looking forward to other thoughts ASAP and if the proposed way fits, I will remove part from handle_split() quoted above and prepare a patch. Regards, Dziugas Baltrunas On 7/21/06, Tomas Varaneckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > this problem seems to be untouched for a while. I was wondering if > anything is done with this subject.. > > http://mantis.kannel.org/view.php?id=352 > > Thanks, > Tomas > >
-- Dziugas
