> On 04 Jan 2016, at 18:43, Jacob Erlbeck <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Jacob,
> diff --git a/openbsc/src/gprs/gprs_gmm.c b/openbsc/src/gprs/gprs_gmm.c
> index 6e7e5f1..212c7d7 100644
> --- a/openbsc/src/gprs/gprs_gmm.c
> +++ b/openbsc/src/gprs/gprs_gmm.c
> @@ -1172,13 +1172,33 @@ static int gsm48_rx_gmm_ra_upd_req(struct sgsn_mm_ctx
> *mmctx, struct msgb *msg,
> * if the TLLI matches foreign_tlli (P-TMSI). Note that this
> * is an optimization to avoid the RA reject (impl detached)
> * below, which will cause a new attach cycle. */
> - }
> -
the todo above reads:
/* TODO: Check if there is an MM CTX with old_ra_id and
* the P-TMSI (if given, reguired for UMTS) or as last resort
* if the TLLI matches foreign_tlli (P-TMSI). Note that this
* is an optimization to avoid the RA reject (impl detached)
* below, which will cause a new attach cycle. */
I think this todo is addressed with sgsn_mm_ctx_by_tlli_and_ptmsi? Can the
comment
be removed?
What about the test? Do we have one that gets the "XID RESET" we expect?
holger
