zenichev left a comment (kamailio/kamailio#4539)
@henningw
> But I think that we probably should migrate the module completely to the new
> approach, and not having a mix of new (trusted) and old (address) data
> structures logic.
Just in the meanwhile, before this rework is actually done, I suggest still to
cover the existing solution with locks.
Regarding the address table, I can update the commit and send additionally the
coverage of address table with locks as well. I don't think this would be a big
work.
> About the duplicate entries, if they are not needed from a functional point
> of view, we don't need to keep this capability IMHO.
So if I understand this correct, we want the duplicate entries to be allowed,
or did I misunderstand you?
> As a side note, the permission module is probably a bit of a special case, as
> its data its much more volatile as e.g. LCR or carrierroute. The carrierroute
> module uses a simple approach with access locking and swapping the old and
> new data structures. But as there are no concurrent reloads done, this is of
> course fine.
Exactly, and that's why it is so much important to cover the trusted and
address tables with locks.
We've been suffering from this drawback since a while.
Let me know if I can add the address table rework here as well. Thanks.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/4539#issuecomment-3738638194
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <kamailio/kamailio/pull/4539/[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Kamailio - Development Mailing List -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the
sender!
