laforge has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-smlc/+/20470 )
Change subject: initial working osmo-smlc implementation ...................................................................... Patch Set 7: (1 comment) https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-smlc/+/20470/6/src/osmo-smlc/lb_peer.c File src/osmo-smlc/lb_peer.c: https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-smlc/+/20470/6/src/osmo-smlc/lb_peer.c@463 PS6, Line 463: " Dropping message.\n"); > by spec, a connection request can be answered with either a conn confirm or a > conn refused. […] you are not talking to the peer, but exchanging primitives with the local SCCP stack. It for sure will never send you a second CONNECT.ind for the same connection identifier. IF yes, it would actually be a reason to ASSERT, as it's a clear violation of the SCCP implementation. So I'm not fully following. But then, I don't really see where this code matches on a CONNECT.ind? -- To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-smlc/+/20470 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings Gerrit-Project: osmo-smlc Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I917ba8fc51a1f1150be77ae01e12a7b16a853052 Gerrit-Change-Number: 20470 Gerrit-PatchSet: 7 Gerrit-Owner: neels <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder Gerrit-CC: fixeria <[email protected]> Gerrit-CC: laforge <[email protected]> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:57:53 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Comment-In-Reply-To: neels <[email protected]> Comment-In-Reply-To: laforge <[email protected]> Gerrit-MessageType: comment
