2013/7/25 Peter Stuge <[email protected]>
> Ivan Kluchnikov wrote:
> > This is new version of patch for review and merge:
> >
> > - more user-friendly interface for command:
> > rach access-control-class 2 barred
> > rach access-control-class 11 allowed
>
> Yes, much better than before, but perhaps spend the half hour it
> takes to write that %d-%d parser using sscanf?
>
You are welcome :)
If you implement %d-%d parser, I will change style of this VTY command.
>
>
>
> > +++ b/openbsc/src/libbsc/bsc_vty.c
> ..
> > @@ -2059,6 +2067,51 @@ DEFUN(cfg_bts_rach_ec_allowed,
> cfg_bts_rach_ec_allowed_cmd,
> > return CMD_SUCCESS;
> > }
> >
> > +DEFUN(cfg_bts_rach_ac_class, cfg_bts_rach_ac_class_cmd,
> > + "rach access-control-class (0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|11|12|13|14|15)
> (barred|allowed)",
> > + RACH_STR
> > + "Set access control class\n"
> > + "Access control class 0\n"
> > + "Access control class 1\n"
> > + "Access control class 2\n"
> > + "Access control class 3\n"
> > + "Access control class 4\n"
> > + "Access control class 5\n"
> > + "Access control class 6\n"
> > + "Access control class 7\n"
> > + "Access control class 8\n"
> > + "Access control class 9\n"
> > + "Access control class 11 for PLMN use\n"
> > + "Access control class 12 for security services\n"
> > + "Access control class 13 for public utilities (e.g. water/gas
> suppliers)\n"
> > + "Access control class 14 for emergency services\n"
> > + "Access control class 15 for PLMN staff\n"
> > + "barred to use access control class\n"
> > + "allowed to use access control class\n")
> > +{
>
> Is that long array of strings correct?
>
I think, yes, because it works.
Do you know other way to do it?
>
>
> //Peter
>
>
--
Regards,
Ivan Kluchnikov.
http://fairwaves.ru
