> On 23 Mar 2016, at 19:14, [email protected] wrote:
>
> From: Max <[email protected]>
>
> Note: ideally this situation should not happen - we should check
> channel compatibility before paging 2nd leg of the call.
>
>
>
> + if (lt != rt) {
lt / rt is not declared in this patch (and yes, it belongs into this one. But
channel type is still not good enough. Let's assume I have a TCH/H and a TCH/F
and I use AMR5.9 on both of these channels. Then the voice codec (and its
parameters) are compatible.
I don't know the specific ticket and ultimate goal but I think either you check
for codec compatibility or change the wording to refer only to channel type and
leave the actual voice codec incompat for another day.
> + LOGP(DCC, LOGL_ERROR, "Cannot patch through call with different"
> + " channel types: local = %s, remote = %s\n",
> + osmo_gsm48_chan_type2str(lt),
> osmo_gsm48_chan_type2str(rt));
> + return -EBADSLT;
> + }
> +
> // todo: map between different bts types
> switch (bts->type) {
> case GSM_BTS_TYPE_NANOBTS:
> @@ -1851,6 +1858,26 @@ static void gsm48_cc_timeout(void *arg)
>
> }
>
> +static inline void disconnect_bridge(struct gsm_network *net,
> + struct gsm_mncc_bridge *bridge)
> +{
> + struct gsm_trans *trans0 = trans_find_by_callref(net,
> bridge->callref[0]);
> + struct gsm_trans *trans1 = trans_find_by_callref(net,
> bridge->callref[1]);
> + struct gsm_mncc mx_rel;
> + if (!trans0 || !trans1)
> + return;
Can you please elaborate about the intention of this method? You try to undo a
failed mapping and do this by disconnecting the call? Is that the right thing
to do? Has there been any side effect by the call of tch_map?
In the long run should there be a MNCC_BRIDGE_REJ answer to the MNCC_BRIDGE
call?
> @@ -3220,7 +3247,12 @@ int mncc_tx_to_cc(struct gsm_network *net, int
> msg_type, void *arg)
> /* handle special messages */
> switch(msg_type) {
> case MNCC_BRIDGE:
> - return tch_bridge(net, arg);
> + rc = tch_bridge(net, arg);
> + if (rc < 0) {
> + DEBUGP(DCC, "Failed to bridge TCH: %s\n",
> strerror(-rc));
Do you think it makes sense to include both callrefs?
holger
