Vadim Yanitskiy has posted comments on this change. ( 
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/12519 )

Change subject: Clarify transaction ID assignment
......................................................................


Patch Set 3:

Hi Max, Harald,

> I am not sure if we should drop it just because the callers always pass '0'B.

I have been thinking a lot about this, and just come to a conclusion.
I think the initial version of this patch wasn't that bad, and doesn't
deserve CR-2. Here is why:

According to GSM 04.07, this flag takes one bit and can be
either of the following:

  '0'B - transaction is allocated by sender of a message,
  '1'B - transaction is allocated by receiver of a message.

Since we store transaction ID in gsm_trans structure, we also store
TI flag (as a part of transaction ID), which in this context means:

  '0'B - transaction is allocated by us (OsmoMSC),
  '1'B - transaction is allocated by some MS.

In 100% cases, trans_assign_trans_id() is used to assign transaction IDs
to transactions allocated by us (i.e. OsmoMSC) for MT connections. And
there is no need to use it for MO transactions, because they basically
already do contain a valid transaction ID.

So, I think we should roll-back to the initial version of this change,
and remove the 'ti_flag' parameter. The explanation above can be used
as the commit description.

Max, I am sorry for not being concrete at the beginning.


--
To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/12519
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit 
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings

Gerrit-Project: osmo-msc
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: Ie11999900b1789652ee078d34636dcda1e137eb0
Gerrit-Change-Number: 12519
Gerrit-PatchSet: 3
Gerrit-Owner: Max <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Harald Welte <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder (1000002)
Gerrit-Reviewer: Max <[email protected]>
Gerrit-CC: Vadim Yanitskiy <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:47:49 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: No
Gerrit-HasLabels: No

Reply via email to