Hello Julian
I was looking at the patch to ax25_in.c, and saw what appears to be a bug. The
same bug does not occur in 2.2.x as DAMA has its own state machine, but the
following looks like a mistake.
Patch for ax25_in.c : Removes piggy-backing in recovery state
---------------------------8<------------------------------------------------
--- ax25_in.c Mon May 10 15:08:39 1999
+++ ax25_in.c Mon May 10 15:08:39 1999
@@ -541,21 +541,21 @@
ax25->state = AX25_STATE_1;
}
break;
case AX25_I:
if (!ax25_validate_nr(ax25, nr)) {
ax25_nr_error_recovery(ax25);
ax25->state = AX25_STATE_1;
break;
}
- ax25_frames_acked(ax25, nr);
+/* ax25_frames_acked(ax25, nr); */
if (ax25->condition & AX25_COND_OWN_RX_BUSY) {
if (pf) {
if (ax25->dama_slave)
ax25_enquiry_response(ax25);
(1) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
else
dama_enquiry_response(ax25);
(2) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}
break;
}
if (ns == ax25->vr) {
----------------------------------8<---------------------------------------
I think lines (1) and (2) should be swapped. Do you agree ?
Are there any more like this in 2.0.x that need changing too ?
Jonathan HB9/G4KLX
