Hi, On 15 February 2010 18:03, Denis Kenzior <[email protected]> wrote: >> } else { >> ofono_error("Received an unsolicited USSD, ignoring for >> now..."); >> DBG("USSD is: status: %d, %s", status, str); >> >> + if (ussd->driver->respond_not_supported) >> + ussd->driver->respond_not_supported(ussd, >> + ussd_not_supported_callback, NULL); >> + >> return; > > There's no reason for this else clause to exist now. The above else if > condition is handling this case too. Just look carefully at ussd driver for > AT command modems, we always call back first, then issue ussd_notify. This is > the case for both modems with and without cancel support.
This is true but we might also get a request when we're in USSD_STATE_USER_ACTION and then by my reading we should reply that the user is busy i.e. send a cancel, what do you think? I left the clause in the patch but removed the unneeded "ussd->pending" check. I included your other comments, thanks. Regards
0001-Handle-network-initiated-ussd-requests.patch
Description: Binary data
0003-Subscribe-to-USSD-signals-in-test-script.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ ofono mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
