Update patch set 5

Patch Set 5:

(1 comment)

Patch-set: 5
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 1000005 \u003c1000005@035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_1000074\u003e replied on the change"}
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 1000074 \u003c1000074@035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326\u003e","operation":"REMOVE","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_1000074\u003e replied on the change"}

62165fd04ba0963cf3ac1385230276c5615c4130

@@ -106,6 +106,24 @@
       "revId": "62165fd04ba0963cf3ac1385230276c5615c4130",
       "serverId": "035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326"
     },
+    {
+      "unresolved": true,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "6f88e2ea_cda4bf15",
+        "filename": "include/osmocom/hnbgw/context_map.h",
+        "patchSetId": 3
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 70,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 1000074
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2023-06-13T09:01:10Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "The main problem here is that \"LINK_LOST\" is too generic and difficult to understand from reader point of view. Is it RANAP RESET? is it SCTP association being ABORTED?\nIf this event is used for both cases, then you can keep the \"LINK_LOST\" but update the comment to mention is used for all kind of issues, from SCTP abort to rx RANAP RESET.\n\nIf it is only really (expècted to be) sent due to RANAP messages as current comment above it suggest, then it should contain the RANAP word.",
+      "parentUuid": "c3bb28f1_101a6874",
+      "revId": "62165fd04ba0963cf3ac1385230276c5615c4130",
+      "serverId": "035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326"
+    },
     {
       "unresolved": true,
       "key": {