On 05/17/2014 06:42 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote: > sip-router writes: > >> Details - This allows the use of pv's at match and subst rules on >> dialplan module. > > is there any performance penalty compared to current version when pvs > are not used?
Calling to the new core function pv_check_format(str *) in the load
process in order to detect if the match/subst rule has pv vars.
pv_check_format code is in the first patch
relevant code in build_rule():
> /*compile the expressions, and if ok, build the rule */
> dpl_node_t * build_rule(db_val_t * values)
> @@ -359,9 +463,10 @@ dpl_node_t * build_rule(db_val_t * values)
> pcre *match_comp, *subst_comp;
> struct subst_expr *repl_comp;
> dpl_node_t * new_rule;
> - str match_exp, subst_exp, repl_exp, attrs;
> + str match_exp, subst_exp, repl_exp, attrs, tmp;
> int matchop;
> int cap_cnt=0;
> + unsigned int pv_flags = 0;
>
> matchop = VAL_INT(values+2);
>
> @@ -377,11 +482,21 @@ dpl_node_t * build_rule(db_val_t * values)
>
> GET_STR_VALUE(match_exp, values, 3);
> if(matchop == DP_REGEX_OP){
> - match_comp = reg_ex_comp(match_exp.s, &cap_cnt);
> - if(!match_comp){
> - LM_ERR("failed to compile match expression %.*s\n",
> - match_exp.len, match_exp.s);
> - goto err;
> + if(check_pv_marker(match_exp, &tmp))
> + pv_flags |= DP_PV_MATCH_M;
> + if(pv_check_format(&tmp)<0){
> + pv_flags &= ~DP_PV_MATCH_MASK;
> + match_comp = reg_ex_comp(match_exp.s, &cap_cnt);
> + if(!match_comp){
> + LM_ERR("failed to compile match expression
> %.*s\n",
> + match_exp.len, match_exp.s);
> + goto err;
> + }
> + }
> + else{
> + pv_flags |= DP_PV_MATCH;
> + LM_DBG("match_exp DP_PV_MATCH_MASK\n");
> + match_comp = NULL;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -398,26 +513,38 @@ dpl_node_t * build_rule(db_val_t * values)
>
> GET_STR_VALUE(subst_exp, values, 5);
> if(subst_exp.s && subst_exp.len){
> - subst_comp = reg_ex_comp(subst_exp.s, &cap_cnt);
> - if(!subst_comp){
> - LM_ERR("failed to compile subst expression %.*s\n",
> - subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s);
> - goto err;
> + if(check_pv_marker(subst_exp, &tmp))
> + pv_flags |= DP_PV_SUBST_M;
> + if(pv_check_format(&tmp)<0){
> + pv_flags &= ~DP_PV_SUBST_MASK;
> + subst_comp = reg_ex_comp(subst_exp.s, &cap_cnt);
> + if(!subst_comp){
> + LM_ERR("failed to compile subst expression
> %.*s\n",
> + subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s);
> + goto err;
> + }
> + if (cap_cnt > MAX_REPLACE_WITH) {
> + LM_ERR("subst expression %.*s has too many
> sub-expressions\n",
> + subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s);
> + goto err;
> + }
> }
> - if (cap_cnt > MAX_REPLACE_WITH) {
> - LM_ERR("subst expression %.*s has too many
> sub-expressions\n",
> - subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s);
> - goto err;
> + else{
> + pv_flags |= DP_PV_SUBST;
> + LM_DBG("subst_exp DP_PV_SUBST_MASK\n");
> + subst_comp = NULL;
> }
> }
>
> - if (repl_comp && (cap_cnt < repl_comp->max_pmatch) &&
> - (repl_comp->max_pmatch != 0)) {
> - LM_ERR("repl_exp %.*s refers to %d sub-expressions, but "
> - "subst_exp %.*s has only %d\n",
> - repl_exp.len, repl_exp.s, repl_comp->max_pmatch,
> - subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s, cap_cnt);
> - goto err;
> + if((pv_flags&DP_PV_MASK)==0) {
> + if (repl_comp && (cap_cnt < repl_comp->max_pmatch) &&
> + (repl_comp->max_pmatch != 0)) {
> + LM_ERR("repl_exp %.*s refers to %d sub-expressions, but
> "
> + "subst_exp %.*s has only %d\n",
> + repl_exp.len, repl_exp.s,
> repl_comp->max_pmatch,
> + subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s, cap_cnt);
> + goto err;
> + }
> }
>
> new_rule = (dpl_node_t *)shm_malloc(sizeof(dpl_node_t));
> @@ -450,6 +577,7 @@ dpl_node_t * build_rule(db_val_t * values)
> new_rule->match_comp = match_comp;
> new_rule->subst_comp = subst_comp;
> new_rule->repl_comp = repl_comp;
> + new_rule->pv_flags = pv_flags;
>
> return new_rule;
>
> @@ -550,6 +678,85 @@ err:
> return -1;
> }
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
