On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Rémi Villé<[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/7/17 Omprakash Gnawali <[email protected]> >> >> 2009/7/13 Mehmet Akif Antepli <[email protected]>: >> > Hi Omprakash, >> > >> > About the inage field, >> > In the code below, first there is the check for the neighbor table entry >> > to >> > update. Inage field is only decremented for the neighbor that sent >> > beacon >> > msg ! >> > >> > // update the inbound link quality by >> > // munging receive, fail count since last update >> > void updateNeighborTableEst(am_addr_t n) { >> > uint8_t i, totalPkt; >> > neighbor_table_entry_t *ne; >> > uint8_t newEst; >> > uint8_t minPkt; >> > minPkt = BLQ_PKT_WINDOW; >> > dbg("LI", "%s\n", __FUNCTION__); >> > for (i = 0; i < NEIGHBOR_TABLE_SIZE; i++) { >> > ne = &NeighborTable[i]; >> > if (ne->ll_addr == n) { >> > if (ne->flags & VALID_ENTRY) { >> > if (ne->inage > 0) >> > ne->inage--; >> > >> > But i think inage field should be decremented when the following >> > condition >> > holds, isn't it? >> >> You caught a bug. This code became a bug when we changed from updating >> all the entries in the link table to selectively updating the link >> table. When all the entries were updated periodically, we would >> decrement the age for all the entries and refresh the age only on the >> entries that were heard from recently. We don't do such wholesome >> periodic updates anymore. Thanks for catching this. >> >> - om_p > > What could be the bad effect of this bug? Some good neighbors could be > evicted before a whole period? > What is the correct code (maybe on cvs)? >
inage did not have any impact on how the estimates were being computed/updated so I removed the code. I just updated the CVS. You can take a look and let me know if you still see some issues. - om_p _______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
