cellular-infrastructure
/
osmo-pcu
mirror of https://gerrit.osmocom.org/osmo-pcu
9
0
Fork 1
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity
osmo-pcu/tests/alloc/AllocTest.ok

15271 lines
568 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

alloc: Add very basic test case for the alloc_a algorithm
2013-10-16 15:29:31 +00:00
Testing alloc_a direction(0)
Testing alloc_a direction(1)
alloc/test: Enhance test_alloc_a This commit adds: - an assertion to check that count is valid, - an assertion the verify that tbf_alloc did not fail - a slots parameter to specify the enabled slots - additional test invocations with more slots enabled Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:45:11 +00:00
Testing alloc_a direction(0)
Testing alloc_a direction(1)
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=0
alloc/tests: Create an allocation test for various scenarious The allocation in the TBF/BTS code is quite complex. In parts this is due the assignment and requests occuring under differen circumstances. Attempt to re-create the commono scenarios. Remove the bogus msclass check in gprs_rlcmac_tbf::update as the allocation code will check the ms class anyway.
2013-12-25 18:16:55 +00:00
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc/tests: Create an allocation test for various scenarious The allocation in the TBF/BTS code is quite complex. In parts this is due the assignment and requests occuring under differen circumstances. Attempt to re-create the commono scenarios. Remove the bogus msclass check in gprs_rlcmac_tbf::update as the allocation code will check the ms class anyway.
2013-12-25 18:16:55 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=1
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[5] is used for UL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
PDCH[5] is used for UL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[1] is used for UL
PDCH[1] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[1] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[1] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[1] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=2
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[2] is used for UL
PDCH[2] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[2] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[2] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=3
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[2] is used for UL
PDCH[2] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[2] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[2] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=4
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[2] is used for UL
PDCH[2] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[2] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[2] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=5
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[5] is used for UL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
PDCH[5] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[1] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[2] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[1] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[1] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[1] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=6
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[2] is used for UL
PDCH[2] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[2] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[2] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=7
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[2] is used for UL
PDCH[2] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[2] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[2] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=8
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=9
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[2] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[2] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[2] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[2] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=10
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=11
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=12
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=13
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[5] is used for UL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
PDCH[5] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[1] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[2] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[1] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[1] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[1] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=14
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[5] is used for UL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
PDCH[5] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[2] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[4] is used for UL
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[1] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[1] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=15
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[5] is used for UL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
PDCH[5] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[2] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[4] is used for UL
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[1] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[1] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=16
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[5] is used for UL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
PDCH[5] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[2] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[4] is used for UL
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[1] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[1] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=17
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[5] is used for UL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
PDCH[5] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[2] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[4] is used for UL
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[1] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[1] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=18
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[5] is used for UL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
PDCH[5] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[5] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[5] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[5] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[2] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[4] is used for UL
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[1] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Do not use masking for multislot class type 2 MS Currently the masks are computed equally for each class type. This does not make much sense for class type 2 MS, since those are capable to work in full duplex mode. This commit sets the masks to 0xff for class type 2 MS. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-09 10:06:56 +00:00
PDCH[1] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[1] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=19
Testing UL then DL assignment.
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing jolly example
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=20
Testing UL then DL assignment.
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing jolly example
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=21
Testing UL then DL assignment.
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing jolly example
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=22
Testing UL then DL assignment.
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing jolly example
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=23
Testing UL then DL assignment.
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing jolly example
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=24
Testing UL then DL assignment.
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing jolly example
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=25
Testing UL then DL assignment.
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing jolly example
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=26
Testing UL then DL assignment.
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing jolly example
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=27
Testing UL then DL assignment.
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing jolly example
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=28
Testing UL then DL assignment.
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing jolly example
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=29
Testing UL then DL assignment.
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
Testing jolly example
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
alloc/test: Go through all possible ms_classes for the allocation Generate results for all possible classes.
2013-12-25 18:25:10 +00:00
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
alloc: Fix MS_B/MS_C interpretation Currently the handling of MS_B and MS_C is not compliant with TS 45.002, annex B.1. These values may only interpreted as 0, if frequency hopping is not enabled and if there is no change from Rx to Tx or vice-versa. This commit sets Ttb/Trb to 1 if the table entry is MS_B/MS_C, since only combined down/up access modes are supported. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-08 10:18:33 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=30
Testing UL then DL assignment.
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=31
Testing UL then DL assignment.
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=32
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=33
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=34
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=35
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=36
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=37
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=38
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=39
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=40
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=41
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=42
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=43
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=44
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
Going to test multislot assignment MS_CLASS=45
Testing UL then DL assignment.
PDCH[6] is used for UL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing DL then UL assignment followed by update
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
PDCH[6] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[7] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[6] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[6] is first common for UL
PDCH[5] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is used for DL
PDCH[7] is used for DL
PDCH[6] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[6] is first common for DL
Testing jolly example
PDCH[3] is used for UL
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
PDCH[4] is used for UL
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
PDCH[3] is control_ts for UL
PDCH[3] is first common for UL
PDCH[1] is used for DL
PDCH[2] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is used for DL
PDCH[4] is used for DL
PDCH[3] is control_ts for DL
PDCH[3] is first common for DL
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(xOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(Oxxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OxOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOxOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOxOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOxOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOxOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOxO)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOx)TS7 MS_Class=45
alloc: Update the test result now that everything is back to working again
2014-01-15 13:42:58 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=0
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=1
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=2
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=3
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=4
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=5
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=6
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=7
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=8
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=9
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=10
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=11
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=12
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=13
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=14
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=15
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=16
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=17
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=18
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=19
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=20
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=21
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=22
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=23
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=24
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=25
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=26
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=27
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=28
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=29
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=30
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=31
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=32
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=33
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=34
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=35
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=36
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=37
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=38
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=39
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=40
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=41
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=42
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=43
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=44
Mass test: TS0(OOOOOOOO)TS7 MS_Class=45
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm A class 1..1 (UL and DL)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .......C
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Successfully allocated 35 UL TBFs, algorithm A class 1..1 (UL and DL)
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm B class 10..10 (UL and DL)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves ...DDCD.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[3] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[5] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[7] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[11] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[13] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ...CC...
Successfully allocated 15 UL TBFs, algorithm B class 10..10 (UL and DL)
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm B class 12..12 (UL and DL)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 12 reserves ...DDCD.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 12 reserves .....DCC
TBF[2] class 12 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[3] class 12 reserves .....DCC
TBF[4] class 12 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[5] class 12 reserves .....DCC
TBF[6] class 12 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[7] class 12 reserves .....DCC
TBF[8] class 12 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[9] class 12 reserves .....DCC
TBF[10] class 12 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....DCC
TBF[12] class 12 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[13] class 12 reserves .....DCC
TBF[14] class 12 reserves ...CC...
Successfully allocated 15 UL TBFs, algorithm B class 12..12 (UL and DL)
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm B class 1..12 (UL and DL)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Replace Algorithm B implementation The current implementation always starts the downlink slot allocation with the first possible slot, depending on which channels are enabled and which multislot class is offered by the MS. So in configurations with many (>4) PDCH, some PDCH are not really used. The new implementation introduced by this commit differs as follows: - The reservation mechanism provided by GprsMs is used to avoid incompatibilities is used in the same way like algo A does. This basically means, that the allocation is done once when the first TBF is requested and then used until all TBF have been released. - All combinations of Rx and Tx slots are checked for compatibility with the multiscot class. Basically the combination with the most usable PDCH and the least number of reservations is used. - Only one UL slots is provided. - Tta and Tra are checked. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-22 14:14:23 +00:00
TBF[1] class 2 reserves ....DC..
TBF[2] class 3 reserves ......DC
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[3] class 4 reserves ...DCD..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[4] class 5 reserves ......CC
TBF[5] class 6 reserves ...CC...
TBF[6] class 7 reserves .....CC.
alloc: Replace Algorithm B implementation The current implementation always starts the downlink slot allocation with the first possible slot, depending on which channels are enabled and which multislot class is offered by the MS. So in configurations with many (>4) PDCH, some PDCH are not really used. The new implementation introduced by this commit differs as follows: - The reservation mechanism provided by GprsMs is used to avoid incompatibilities is used in the same way like algo A does. This basically means, that the allocation is done once when the first TBF is requested and then used until all TBF have been released. - All combinations of Rx and Tx slots are checked for compatibility with the multiscot class. Basically the combination with the most usable PDCH and the least number of reservations is used. - Only one UL slots is provided. - Tta and Tra are checked. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-22 14:14:23 +00:00
TBF[7] class 8 reserves ....DDCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[8] class 9 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[10] class 11 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....DCC
alloc: Only use common UL slots when calculating the capacity Currently al possible UL slots are included in the capacity calculation which is the base of the slot selection. Nevertheless UL-only slots will never be used, since only one uplink slot (which must be a common slot) will be used. This patch changes the code to only include common slots in the capacity sum. Note that this might not be optimal if algorithm B supported multiple uplink slots. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-01 10:19:40 +00:00
TBF[12] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Replace Algorithm B implementation The current implementation always starts the downlink slot allocation with the first possible slot, depending on which channels are enabled and which multislot class is offered by the MS. So in configurations with many (>4) PDCH, some PDCH are not really used. The new implementation introduced by this commit differs as follows: - The reservation mechanism provided by GprsMs is used to avoid incompatibilities is used in the same way like algo A does. This basically means, that the allocation is done once when the first TBF is requested and then used until all TBF have been released. - All combinations of Rx and Tx slots are checked for compatibility with the multiscot class. Basically the combination with the most usable PDCH and the least number of reservations is used. - Only one UL slots is provided. - Tta and Tra are checked. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-22 14:14:23 +00:00
TBF[13] class 2 reserves ......DC
alloc: Only use common UL slots when calculating the capacity Currently al possible UL slots are included in the capacity calculation which is the base of the slot selection. Nevertheless UL-only slots will never be used, since only one uplink slot (which must be a common slot) will be used. This patch changes the code to only include common slots in the capacity sum. Note that this might not be optimal if algorithm B supported multiple uplink slots. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-01 10:19:40 +00:00
TBF[14] class 3 reserves ...DC...
alloc: Replace Algorithm B implementation The current implementation always starts the downlink slot allocation with the first possible slot, depending on which channels are enabled and which multislot class is offered by the MS. So in configurations with many (>4) PDCH, some PDCH are not really used. The new implementation introduced by this commit differs as follows: - The reservation mechanism provided by GprsMs is used to avoid incompatibilities is used in the same way like algo A does. This basically means, that the allocation is done once when the first TBF is requested and then used until all TBF have been released. - All combinations of Rx and Tx slots are checked for compatibility with the multiscot class. Basically the combination with the most usable PDCH and the least number of reservations is used. - Only one UL slots is provided. - Tta and Tra are checked. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-22 14:14:23 +00:00
TBF[15] class 4 reserves ....DCD.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[16] class 5 reserves ...CC...
TBF[17] class 6 reserves ......CC
TBF[18] class 7 reserves ...CC...
TBF[19] class 8 reserves ....DDCD
TBF[20] class 9 reserves .....DDC
TBF[21] class 10 reserves ...DDCD.
TBF[22] class 11 reserves ...DDCD.
Successfully allocated 23 UL TBFs, algorithm B class 1..12 (UL and DL)
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm B class 1..46 (UL and DL)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Replace Algorithm B implementation The current implementation always starts the downlink slot allocation with the first possible slot, depending on which channels are enabled and which multislot class is offered by the MS. So in configurations with many (>4) PDCH, some PDCH are not really used. The new implementation introduced by this commit differs as follows: - The reservation mechanism provided by GprsMs is used to avoid incompatibilities is used in the same way like algo A does. This basically means, that the allocation is done once when the first TBF is requested and then used until all TBF have been released. - All combinations of Rx and Tx slots are checked for compatibility with the multiscot class. Basically the combination with the most usable PDCH and the least number of reservations is used. - Only one UL slots is provided. - Tta and Tra are checked. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-22 14:14:23 +00:00
TBF[1] class 2 reserves ....DC..
TBF[2] class 3 reserves ......DC
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[3] class 4 reserves ...DCD..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[4] class 5 reserves ......CC
TBF[5] class 6 reserves ...CC...
TBF[6] class 7 reserves .....CC.
alloc: Replace Algorithm B implementation The current implementation always starts the downlink slot allocation with the first possible slot, depending on which channels are enabled and which multislot class is offered by the MS. So in configurations with many (>4) PDCH, some PDCH are not really used. The new implementation introduced by this commit differs as follows: - The reservation mechanism provided by GprsMs is used to avoid incompatibilities is used in the same way like algo A does. This basically means, that the allocation is done once when the first TBF is requested and then used until all TBF have been released. - All combinations of Rx and Tx slots are checked for compatibility with the multiscot class. Basically the combination with the most usable PDCH and the least number of reservations is used. - Only one UL slots is provided. - Tta and Tra are checked. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-22 14:14:23 +00:00
TBF[7] class 8 reserves ....DDCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[8] class 9 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[10] class 11 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....DCC
TBF[12] class 13 reserves ...CCC..
TBF[13] class 14 reserves ...CCCC.
TBF[14] class 15 reserves ...CCCCC
TBF[15] class 16 reserves ...CDDDC
TBF[16] class 17 reserves ...CDDDC
Successfully allocated 17 UL TBFs, algorithm B class 1..46 (UL and DL)
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm dynamic class 1..46 (UL and DL)
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 2 reserves ....DC..
TBF[2] class 3 reserves ......DC
TBF[3] class 4 reserves ...DCD..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[4] class 5 reserves ......CC
TBF[5] class 6 reserves ...CC...
TBF[6] class 7 reserves .....CC.
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[7] class 8 reserves ....DDCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[8] class 9 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[10] class 11 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....DCC
TBF[12] class 13 reserves ...CCC..
TBF[13] class 14 reserves ...CCCC.
TBF[14] class 15 reserves ...CCCCC
TBF[15] class 16 reserves ...CDDDC
TBF[16] class 17 reserves ...CDDDC
Successfully allocated 17 UL TBFs, algorithm dynamic class 1..46 (UL and DL)
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm A class 1..1 (DL and UL)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .......C
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Successfully allocated 35 UL TBFs, algorithm A class 1..1 (DL and UL)
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm B class 10..10 (DL and UL)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves ...DDCD.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[3] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[5] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[7] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[11] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[13] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ...CC...
Successfully allocated 15 UL TBFs, algorithm B class 10..10 (DL and UL)
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm dynamic class 10..10 (DL and UL)
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves ...DDCD.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[3] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[5] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[7] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[11] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[13] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ...CC...
Successfully allocated 15 UL TBFs, algorithm dynamic class 10..10 (DL and UL)
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm A class 1..1 (DL after UL)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[7] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[7] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[7] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[7] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[7] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[8] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[8] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[8] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[8] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[8] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[9] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[9] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[9] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[9] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[9] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[10] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[10] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[10] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[10] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[10] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[11] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[11] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[11] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[11] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[11] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[12] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[12] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[12] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[12] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[12] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[13] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[13] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[13] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[13] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[13] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[14] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[14] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[14] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[14] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[14] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[15] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[15] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[15] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[15] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[15] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[16] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[16] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[16] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[16] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[16] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[17] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[17] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[17] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[17] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[17] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[18] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[18] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[18] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[18] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[18] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[19] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[19] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[19] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[19] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[19] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[20] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[20] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[20] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[20] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[20] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[21] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[21] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[21] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[21] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[21] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[22] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[22] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[22] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[22] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[22] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[23] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[23] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[23] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[23] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[23] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[24] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[24] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[24] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[24] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[24] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[25] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[25] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[25] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[25] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[25] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[26] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[26] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[26] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[26] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[26] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[27] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[27] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[27] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[27] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[27] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[28] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[28] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[28] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[28] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[28] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[29] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[29] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[29] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[29] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[29] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[30] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[30] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[30] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[30] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[30] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[31] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[31] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[31] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[31] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[31] class 1 reserves .......C
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Successfully allocated 160 UL TBFs, algorithm A class 1..1 (DL after UL)
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm B class 10..10 (DL after UL)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves ...DDCD.
alloc: Replace Algorithm B implementation The current implementation always starts the downlink slot allocation with the first possible slot, depending on which channels are enabled and which multislot class is offered by the MS. So in configurations with many (>4) PDCH, some PDCH are not really used. The new implementation introduced by this commit differs as follows: - The reservation mechanism provided by GprsMs is used to avoid incompatibilities is used in the same way like algo A does. This basically means, that the allocation is done once when the first TBF is requested and then used until all TBF have been released. - All combinations of Rx and Tx slots are checked for compatibility with the multiscot class. Basically the combination with the most usable PDCH and the least number of reservations is used. - Only one UL slots is provided. - Tta and Tra are checked. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-22 14:14:23 +00:00
TBF[1] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[3] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[5] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[7] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[11] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[13] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[15] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[16] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[17] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[18] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[19] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[20] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[21] class 10 reserves .....DCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[22] class 10 reserves ...CD...
alloc: Replace Algorithm B implementation The current implementation always starts the downlink slot allocation with the first possible slot, depending on which channels are enabled and which multislot class is offered by the MS. So in configurations with many (>4) PDCH, some PDCH are not really used. The new implementation introduced by this commit differs as follows: - The reservation mechanism provided by GprsMs is used to avoid incompatibilities is used in the same way like algo A does. This basically means, that the allocation is done once when the first TBF is requested and then used until all TBF have been released. - All combinations of Rx and Tx slots are checked for compatibility with the multiscot class. Basically the combination with the most usable PDCH and the least number of reservations is used. - Only one UL slots is provided. - Tta and Tra are checked. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-22 14:14:23 +00:00
TBF[23] class 10 reserves .....DCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[24] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[25] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[26] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[27] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[28] class 10 reserves ....DCD.
alloc: Replace Algorithm B implementation The current implementation always starts the downlink slot allocation with the first possible slot, depending on which channels are enabled and which multislot class is offered by the MS. So in configurations with many (>4) PDCH, some PDCH are not really used. The new implementation introduced by this commit differs as follows: - The reservation mechanism provided by GprsMs is used to avoid incompatibilities is used in the same way like algo A does. This basically means, that the allocation is done once when the first TBF is requested and then used until all TBF have been released. - All combinations of Rx and Tx slots are checked for compatibility with the multiscot class. Basically the combination with the most usable PDCH and the least number of reservations is used. - Only one UL slots is provided. - Tta and Tra are checked. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-22 14:14:23 +00:00
TBF[29] class 10 reserves .....DCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[30] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[31] class 10 reserves ...CD...
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Successfully allocated 32 UL TBFs, algorithm B class 10..10 (DL after UL)
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm dynamic class 10..10 (DL after UL)
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves ...DDCD.
TBF[1] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[3] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[5] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[7] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[11] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[13] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[15] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[16] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[17] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[18] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[19] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[20] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[21] class 10 reserves .....DCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[22] class 10 reserves ...CD...
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[23] class 10 reserves .....DCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[24] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[25] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[26] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[27] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[28] class 10 reserves ....DCD.
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[29] class 10 reserves .....DCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[30] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[31] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ......C.
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[1] class 10 reserves ...C....
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[3] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[5] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[7] class 10 reserves ...C....
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ......C.
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[6] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[9] class 10 reserves ...C....
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ......C.
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[8] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[11] class 10 reserves ...C....
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[3] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ......C.
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[10] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[13] class 10 reserves ...C....
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[5] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ......C.
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[12] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[15] class 10 reserves ...C....
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[7] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ......C.
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[14] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[17] class 10 reserves ...C....
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[9] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[22] class 10 reserves .....C..
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ......C.
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[16] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[19] class 10 reserves ...C....
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[11] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[24] class 10 reserves .....C..
TBF[16] class 10 reserves ......C.
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[18] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[21] class 10 reserves ...C....
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[13] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[25] class 10 reserves .....C..
TBF[18] class 10 reserves ......C.
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[20] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[23] class 10 reserves ...C....
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[15] class 10 reserves ....C...
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[27] class 10 reserves .....C..
TBF[20] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[22] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[26] class 10 reserves ...C....
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[17] class 10 reserves ....C...
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[30] class 10 reserves .....C..
TBF[22] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[24] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[28] class 10 reserves ...C....
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[19] class 10 reserves ....C...
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[31] class 10 reserves .....C..
TBF[24] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[25] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[29] class 10 reserves ...C....
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[21] class 10 reserves ....C...
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[25] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[27] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[23] class 10 reserves ....C...
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[27] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[28] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[26] class 10 reserves ....C...
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[30] class 10 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[30] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[29] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[31] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[31] class 10 reserves .......C
Successfully allocated 101 UL TBFs, algorithm dynamic class 10..10 (DL after UL)
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm A class 1..1 (UL after DL)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...U....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ....U...
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .....U..
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ......U.
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .......U
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ...U....
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ....U...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .....U..
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ......U.
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .......U
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ...U....
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ....U...
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .....U..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ......U.
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .......U
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ...U....
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ....U...
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .....U..
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ......U.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .......U
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ...U....
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ....U...
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .....U..
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ......U.
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .......U
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ...U....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ....U...
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .....U..
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ......U.
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .......U
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ...U....
alloc: Use least reserved PDCH for algo A Currently the slot selection of algorithm A is based on the current slot usage by active TBF. Especially in the Dl after UL case which reflects the commen use case "MS initiates TCP connection", the resulting distribution is not optimal with respect to PDCH usage. This commit changes the implementation to use the slot reservation information instead. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-02 13:48:25 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ....U...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .....U..
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ......U.
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .......U
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Successfully allocated 35 UL TBFs, algorithm A class 1..1 (UL after DL)
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm B class 10..10 (UL after DL)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves .....U..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[3] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[5] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[7] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[11] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[13] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ...UU...
Successfully allocated 15 UL TBFs, algorithm B class 10..10 (UL after DL)
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm dynamic class 10..10 (UL after DL)
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves .....U..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[3] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[5] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[7] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[11] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[13] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ...UU...
Successfully allocated 15 UL TBFs, algorithm dynamic class 10..10 (UL after DL)
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm A class 1..1 (UL only)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...U....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ....U...
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .....U..
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ......U.
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .......U
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ...U....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ....U...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .....U..
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ......U.
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .......U
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ...U....
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ....U...
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .....U..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ......U.
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .......U
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ...U....
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ....U...
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .....U..
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ......U.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .......U
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ...U....
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ....U...
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .....U..
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ......U.
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .......U
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ...U....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ....U...
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .....U..
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ......U.
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .......U
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ...U....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ....U...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .....U..
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ......U.
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .......U
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Successfully allocated 35 UL TBFs, algorithm A class 1..1 (UL only)
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm B class 10..10 (UL only)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves .....U..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[3] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[5] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[7] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[11] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[13] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ...UU...
Successfully allocated 15 UL TBFs, algorithm B class 10..10 (UL only)
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm dynamic class 10..10 (UL only)
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves .....U..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[3] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[5] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[7] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[11] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ....UU..
TBF[13] class 10 reserves ......UU
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ...UU...
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves ...U....
TBF[1] class 10 reserves ...U....
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ...U....
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[3] class 10 reserves ...U....
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ...U....
TBF[5] class 10 reserves ...U....
Successfully allocated 21 UL TBFs, algorithm dynamic class 10..10 (UL only)
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm A class 1..1 (DL only)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[0] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[1] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[1] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[2] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[2] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[3] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[4] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[4] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[5] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[6] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[7] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[7] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[7] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[7] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[7] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[8] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[8] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[8] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[8] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[8] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[9] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[9] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[9] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[9] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[9] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[10] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[10] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[10] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[10] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[10] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[11] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[11] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[11] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[11] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[11] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[12] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[12] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[12] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[12] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[12] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[13] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[13] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[13] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[13] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[13] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[14] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[14] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[14] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[14] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[14] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[15] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[15] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[15] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[15] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[15] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[16] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[16] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[16] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[16] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[16] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[17] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[17] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[17] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[17] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[17] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[18] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[18] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[18] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[18] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[18] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[19] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[19] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[19] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[19] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[19] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[20] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[20] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[20] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[20] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[20] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[21] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[21] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[21] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[21] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[21] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[22] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[22] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[22] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[22] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[22] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[23] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[23] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[23] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[23] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[23] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[24] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[24] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[24] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[24] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[24] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[25] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[25] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[25] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[25] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[25] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[26] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[26] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[26] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[26] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[26] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[27] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[27] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[27] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[27] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[27] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[28] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[28] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[28] class 1 reserves .....C..
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[28] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[28] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[29] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[29] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[29] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[29] class 1 reserves ......C.
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[29] class 1 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[30] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[30] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[30] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[30] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[30] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[31] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Load balancing for algo A Currently only the first enabled PDCH will be used. Beside the throughput this will also limit the number of TBFs: - number of UL TBFs <= 7 - number of DL TBFs <= 32 This commit changes the allocation algorithm to use the PDCH with the least number of attached TBFs. This will improve the troughput in both directions and the UL limits: - number of UL TBFs <= min(32, N_PDCH * 7) UL TBFs Ticket: #1794 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-19 14:35:38 +00:00
TBF[31] class 1 reserves ....C...
alloc: Allocate TFI per slot (algorithm A) Currently the TFI are managed per TRX, thus only a maximum of 32 TBF per direction and per TRX are possible simultaneously. This commit modifies algorithm_a() to allow the sharing of TFI between different PDCH. Since algorithm A only assigns a single slot to each TBF, the TFI of each PDCH can be assigned independently. This increases the maximum to 32 TBF per direction and per PDCH concerning the TFI allocation. Ticket: #1793 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-10 10:25:25 +00:00
TBF[31] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[31] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[31] class 1 reserves .......C
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Successfully allocated 160 UL TBFs, algorithm A class 1..1 (DL only)
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm B class 10..10 (DL only)
alloc/test: Add test for successive allocation This test allocates as many as possible UL/DL TBF pairs, shows their PDCH usage, and checks how many of them has been created successfully. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-29 10:19:52 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves ...DDCD.
alloc: Replace Algorithm B implementation The current implementation always starts the downlink slot allocation with the first possible slot, depending on which channels are enabled and which multislot class is offered by the MS. So in configurations with many (>4) PDCH, some PDCH are not really used. The new implementation introduced by this commit differs as follows: - The reservation mechanism provided by GprsMs is used to avoid incompatibilities is used in the same way like algo A does. This basically means, that the allocation is done once when the first TBF is requested and then used until all TBF have been released. - All combinations of Rx and Tx slots are checked for compatibility with the multiscot class. Basically the combination with the most usable PDCH and the least number of reservations is used. - Only one UL slots is provided. - Tta and Tra are checked. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-06-22 14:14:23 +00:00
TBF[1] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[3] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[5] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[7] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[11] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[13] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[15] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[16] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[17] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[18] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[19] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[20] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[21] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[22] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[23] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[24] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[25] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[26] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[27] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[28] class 10 reserves ....DCD.
TBF[29] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[30] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[31] class 10 reserves ...CD...
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Successfully allocated 32 UL TBFs, algorithm B class 10..10 (DL only)
Going to test assignment with many TBF, algorithm dynamic class 10..10 (DL only)
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[0] class 10 reserves ...DDCD.
TBF[1] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[3] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[5] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[7] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[11] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[13] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[15] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[16] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[17] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[18] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[19] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[20] class 10 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[21] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[22] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[23] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[24] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[25] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[26] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[27] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[28] class 10 reserves ....DCD.
TBF[29] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[30] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[31] class 10 reserves ...CD...
TBF[1] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[0] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[3] class 10 reserves ...C....
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[2] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[5] class 10 reserves ...C....
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[2] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[4] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[7] class 10 reserves ...C....
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[4] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[9] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 10 reserves ....C...
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[8] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[11] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 10 reserves ....C...
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[8] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[10] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[13] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[5] class 10 reserves ....C...
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[10] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[12] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[15] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[7] class 10 reserves ....C...
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[12] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[14] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[17] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[9] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[22] class 10 reserves .....C..
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[14] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[16] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[19] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[11] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[24] class 10 reserves .....C..
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[16] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[18] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[21] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[13] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[25] class 10 reserves .....C..
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[18] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[20] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[23] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[15] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[27] class 10 reserves .....C..
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[20] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[22] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[26] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[17] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[30] class 10 reserves .....C..
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[22] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[24] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[28] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[19] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[31] class 10 reserves .....C..
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[24] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[25] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[29] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[21] class 10 reserves ....C...
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[25] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[27] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[23] class 10 reserves ....C...
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[27] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[28] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[26] class 10 reserves ....C...
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[30] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[30] class 10 reserves .......C
alloc: Use a separate usage computation for algo A Currently algorithm A can select an TBF even when there is no free TBF in the reverse direction. While this does not necessarily lead to an allocation failure, the probabily is higher. In addition, the current slot reservations are not taken into account. This commit changes the selection algorithm to prefer slots where TFI are available in both directions and which are less reserved. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 13:04:07 +00:00
TBF[29] class 10 reserves ....C...
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[31] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[31] class 10 reserves .......C
AllocTest: expand test output * print MS classes * unify and print test mode description * print additional info on test completion This only changes meta info about test run but not the actual test output. Change-Id: I30a4b8f561a9677f4e9ded33a051a249bd15a6a2 Related: OS#2282
2017-11-27 12:21:41 +00:00
Successfully allocated 101 UL TBFs, algorithm dynamic class 10..10 (DL only)
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many connections, algorithm A
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[0] class 2 reserves ....C...
TBF[0] class 3 reserves .....C..
TBF[0] class 4 reserves ......C.
TBF[0] class 5 reserves .......C
TBF[1] class 6 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 7 reserves ....C...
TBF[1] class 8 reserves .....C..
TBF[1] class 9 reserves ......C.
TBF[1] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[2] class 11 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 12 reserves ....C...
TBF[2] class 13 reserves .....C..
TBF[2] class 14 reserves ......C.
TBF[2] class 15 reserves .......C
TBF[3] class 16 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 17 reserves ....C...
TBF[3] class 18 reserves .....C..
TBF[3] class 19 reserves ......C.
TBF[3] class 20 reserves .......C
TBF[4] class 21 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 22 reserves ....C...
TBF[4] class 23 reserves .....C..
TBF[4] class 24 reserves ......C.
TBF[4] class 25 reserves .......C
TBF[5] class 26 reserves ...C....
TBF[5] class 27 reserves ....C...
TBF[5] class 28 reserves .....C..
TBF[5] class 29 reserves ......C.
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
TBF[5] class 30 reserves .......C
TBF[6] class 31 reserves ...C....
TBF[6] class 32 reserves ....C...
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[6] class 33 reserves .....C..
TBF[6] class 34 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 35 reserves .......C
TBF[7] class 36 reserves ...C....
TBF[7] class 37 reserves ....C...
TBF[7] class 38 reserves .....C..
TBF[7] class 39 reserves ......C.
TBF[7] class 40 reserves .......C
TBF[8] class 41 reserves ...C....
TBF[8] class 42 reserves ....C...
TBF[8] class 43 reserves .....C..
TBF[8] class 44 reserves ......C.
TBF[8] class 45 reserves .......C
TBF[9] class 46 reserves ...C....
TBF[9] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[9] class 2 reserves .....C..
TBF[9] class 3 reserves ......C.
TBF[9] class 4 reserves .......C
TBF[10] class 5 reserves ...C....
TBF[10] class 6 reserves ....C...
TBF[10] class 7 reserves .....C..
TBF[10] class 8 reserves ......C.
TBF[10] class 9 reserves .......C
TBF[11] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[11] class 11 reserves ....C...
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....C..
TBF[11] class 13 reserves ......C.
TBF[11] class 14 reserves .......C
TBF[12] class 15 reserves ...C....
TBF[12] class 16 reserves ....C...
TBF[12] class 17 reserves .....C..
TBF[12] class 18 reserves ......C.
TBF[12] class 19 reserves .......C
TBF[13] class 20 reserves ...C....
TBF[13] class 21 reserves ....C...
TBF[13] class 22 reserves .....C..
TBF[13] class 23 reserves ......C.
TBF[13] class 24 reserves .......C
TBF[14] class 25 reserves ...C....
TBF[14] class 26 reserves ....C...
TBF[14] class 27 reserves .....C..
TBF[14] class 28 reserves ......C.
TBF[14] class 29 reserves .......C
TBF[15] class 30 reserves ...C....
TBF[15] class 31 reserves ....C...
TBF[15] class 32 reserves .....C..
TBF[15] class 33 reserves ......C.
TBF[15] class 34 reserves .......C
TBF[16] class 35 reserves ...C....
TBF[16] class 36 reserves ....C...
TBF[16] class 37 reserves .....C..
TBF[16] class 38 reserves ......C.
TBF[16] class 39 reserves .......C
TBF[17] class 40 reserves ...C....
TBF[17] class 41 reserves ....C...
TBF[17] class 42 reserves .....C..
TBF[17] class 43 reserves ......C.
TBF[17] class 44 reserves .......C
TBF[18] class 45 reserves ...C....
TBF[18] class 46 reserves ....C...
TBF[18] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[18] class 2 reserves ......C.
TBF[18] class 3 reserves .......C
TBF[19] class 4 reserves ...C....
TBF[19] class 5 reserves ....C...
TBF[19] class 6 reserves .....C..
TBF[19] class 7 reserves ......C.
TBF[19] class 8 reserves .......C
TBF[20] class 9 reserves ...C....
TBF[20] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[20] class 11 reserves .....C..
TBF[20] class 12 reserves ......C.
TBF[20] class 13 reserves .......C
TBF[21] class 14 reserves ...C....
TBF[21] class 15 reserves ....C...
TBF[21] class 16 reserves .....C..
TBF[21] class 17 reserves ......C.
TBF[21] class 18 reserves .......C
TBF[22] class 19 reserves ...C....
TBF[22] class 20 reserves ....C...
TBF[22] class 21 reserves .....C..
TBF[22] class 22 reserves ......C.
TBF[22] class 23 reserves .......C
TBF[23] class 24 reserves ...C....
TBF[23] class 25 reserves ....C...
TBF[23] class 26 reserves .....C..
TBF[23] class 27 reserves ......C.
TBF[23] class 28 reserves .......C
TBF[24] class 29 reserves ...C....
TBF[24] class 30 reserves ....C...
TBF[24] class 31 reserves .....C..
TBF[24] class 32 reserves ......C.
TBF[24] class 33 reserves .......C
TBF[25] class 34 reserves ...C....
TBF[25] class 35 reserves ....C...
TBF[25] class 36 reserves .....C..
TBF[25] class 37 reserves ......C.
TBF[25] class 38 reserves .......C
TBF[26] class 39 reserves ...C....
TBF[26] class 40 reserves ....C...
TBF[26] class 41 reserves .....C..
TBF[26] class 42 reserves ......C.
TBF[26] class 43 reserves .......C
TBF[27] class 44 reserves ...C....
TBF[27] class 45 reserves ....C...
TBF[27] class 46 reserves .....C..
TBF[27] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[27] class 2 reserves .......C
TBF[28] class 3 reserves ...C....
TBF[28] class 4 reserves ....C...
TBF[28] class 5 reserves .....C..
TBF[28] class 6 reserves ......C.
TBF[28] class 7 reserves .......C
TBF[29] class 8 reserves ...C....
TBF[29] class 9 reserves ....C...
TBF[29] class 10 reserves .....C..
TBF[29] class 11 reserves ......C.
TBF[29] class 12 reserves .......C
TBF[30] class 13 reserves ...C....
TBF[30] class 14 reserves ....C...
TBF[30] class 15 reserves .....C..
TBF[30] class 16 reserves ......C.
TBF[30] class 17 reserves .......C
TBF[31] class 18 reserves ...C....
TBF[31] class 19 reserves ....C...
TBF[31] class 20 reserves .....C..
TBF[31] class 21 reserves ......C.
TBF[31] class 22 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[0] class 2 reserves ....C...
TBF[0] class 3 reserves .....C..
TBF[0] class 4 reserves ......C.
TBF[0] class 5 reserves .......C
TBF[1] class 6 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 7 reserves ....C...
TBF[1] class 8 reserves .....C..
TBF[1] class 9 reserves ......C.
TBF[1] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[2] class 11 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 12 reserves ....C...
TBF[2] class 13 reserves .....C..
TBF[2] class 14 reserves ......C.
TBF[2] class 15 reserves .......C
TBF[3] class 16 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 17 reserves ....C...
TBF[3] class 18 reserves .....C..
TBF[3] class 19 reserves ......C.
TBF[3] class 20 reserves .......C
TBF[4] class 21 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 22 reserves ....C...
TBF[4] class 23 reserves .....C..
TBF[4] class 24 reserves ......C.
TBF[4] class 25 reserves .......C
TBF[5] class 26 reserves ...C....
TBF[5] class 27 reserves ....C...
TBF[5] class 28 reserves .....C..
TBF[5] class 29 reserves ......C.
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
TBF[5] class 30 reserves .......C
TBF[6] class 31 reserves ...C....
TBF[6] class 32 reserves ....C...
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[6] class 33 reserves .....C..
TBF[6] class 34 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 35 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[0] class 2 reserves ....C...
TBF[0] class 3 reserves .....C..
TBF[0] class 4 reserves ......C.
TBF[0] class 5 reserves .......C
TBF[1] class 6 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 7 reserves ....C...
TBF[1] class 8 reserves .....C..
TBF[1] class 9 reserves ......C.
TBF[1] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[2] class 11 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 12 reserves ....C...
TBF[2] class 13 reserves .....C..
TBF[2] class 14 reserves ......C.
TBF[2] class 15 reserves .......C
TBF[3] class 16 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 17 reserves ....C...
TBF[3] class 18 reserves .....C..
TBF[3] class 19 reserves ......C.
TBF[3] class 20 reserves .......C
TBF[4] class 21 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 22 reserves ....C...
TBF[4] class 23 reserves .....C..
TBF[4] class 24 reserves ......C.
TBF[4] class 25 reserves .......C
TBF[5] class 26 reserves ...C....
TBF[5] class 27 reserves ....C...
TBF[5] class 28 reserves .....C..
TBF[5] class 29 reserves ......C.
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
TBF[5] class 30 reserves .......C
TBF[6] class 31 reserves ...C....
TBF[6] class 32 reserves ....C...
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[6] class 33 reserves .....C..
TBF[6] class 34 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 35 reserves .......C
TBF[7] class 36 reserves ...C....
TBF[7] class 37 reserves ....C...
TBF[7] class 38 reserves .....C..
TBF[7] class 39 reserves ......C.
TBF[7] class 40 reserves .......C
TBF[8] class 41 reserves ...C....
TBF[8] class 42 reserves ....C...
TBF[8] class 43 reserves .....C..
TBF[8] class 44 reserves ......C.
TBF[8] class 45 reserves .......C
TBF[9] class 46 reserves ...C....
TBF[9] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[9] class 2 reserves .....C..
TBF[9] class 3 reserves ......C.
TBF[9] class 4 reserves .......C
TBF[10] class 5 reserves ...C....
TBF[10] class 6 reserves ....C...
TBF[10] class 7 reserves .....C..
TBF[10] class 8 reserves ......C.
TBF[10] class 9 reserves .......C
TBF[11] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[11] class 11 reserves ....C...
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....C..
TBF[11] class 13 reserves ......C.
TBF[11] class 14 reserves .......C
TBF[12] class 15 reserves ...C....
TBF[12] class 16 reserves ....C...
TBF[12] class 17 reserves .....C..
TBF[12] class 18 reserves ......C.
TBF[12] class 19 reserves .......C
TBF[13] class 20 reserves ...C....
TBF[13] class 21 reserves ....C...
TBF[13] class 22 reserves .....C..
TBF[13] class 23 reserves ......C.
TBF[13] class 24 reserves .......C
TBF[14] class 25 reserves ...C....
TBF[14] class 26 reserves ....C...
TBF[14] class 27 reserves .....C..
TBF[14] class 28 reserves ......C.
TBF[14] class 29 reserves .......C
TBF[15] class 30 reserves ...C....
TBF[15] class 31 reserves ....C...
TBF[15] class 32 reserves .....C..
TBF[15] class 33 reserves ......C.
TBF[15] class 34 reserves .......C
TBF[16] class 35 reserves ...C....
TBF[16] class 36 reserves ....C...
TBF[16] class 37 reserves .....C..
TBF[16] class 38 reserves ......C.
TBF[16] class 39 reserves .......C
TBF[17] class 40 reserves ...C....
TBF[17] class 41 reserves ....C...
TBF[17] class 42 reserves .....C..
TBF[17] class 43 reserves ......C.
TBF[17] class 44 reserves .......C
TBF[18] class 45 reserves ...C....
TBF[18] class 46 reserves ....C...
TBF[18] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[18] class 2 reserves ......C.
TBF[18] class 3 reserves .......C
TBF[19] class 4 reserves ...C....
TBF[19] class 5 reserves ....C...
TBF[19] class 6 reserves .....C..
TBF[19] class 7 reserves ......C.
TBF[19] class 8 reserves .......C
TBF[20] class 9 reserves ...C....
TBF[20] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[20] class 11 reserves .....C..
TBF[20] class 12 reserves ......C.
TBF[20] class 13 reserves .......C
TBF[21] class 14 reserves ...C....
TBF[21] class 15 reserves ....C...
TBF[21] class 16 reserves .....C..
TBF[21] class 17 reserves ......C.
TBF[21] class 18 reserves .......C
TBF[22] class 19 reserves ...C....
TBF[22] class 20 reserves ....C...
TBF[22] class 21 reserves .....C..
TBF[22] class 22 reserves ......C.
TBF[22] class 23 reserves .......C
TBF[23] class 24 reserves ...C....
TBF[23] class 25 reserves ....C...
TBF[23] class 26 reserves .....C..
TBF[23] class 27 reserves ......C.
TBF[23] class 28 reserves .......C
TBF[24] class 29 reserves ...C....
TBF[24] class 30 reserves ....C...
TBF[24] class 31 reserves .....C..
TBF[24] class 32 reserves ......C.
TBF[24] class 33 reserves .......C
TBF[25] class 34 reserves ...C....
TBF[25] class 35 reserves ....C...
TBF[25] class 36 reserves .....C..
TBF[25] class 37 reserves ......C.
TBF[25] class 38 reserves .......C
TBF[26] class 39 reserves ...C....
TBF[26] class 40 reserves ....C...
TBF[26] class 41 reserves .....C..
TBF[26] class 42 reserves ......C.
TBF[26] class 43 reserves .......C
TBF[27] class 44 reserves ...C....
TBF[27] class 45 reserves ....C...
TBF[27] class 46 reserves .....C..
TBF[27] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[27] class 2 reserves .......C
TBF[28] class 3 reserves ...C....
TBF[28] class 4 reserves ....C...
TBF[28] class 5 reserves .....C..
TBF[28] class 6 reserves ......C.
TBF[28] class 7 reserves .......C
TBF[29] class 8 reserves ...C....
TBF[29] class 9 reserves ....C...
TBF[29] class 10 reserves .....C..
TBF[29] class 11 reserves ......C.
TBF[29] class 12 reserves .......C
TBF[30] class 13 reserves ...C....
TBF[30] class 14 reserves ....C...
TBF[30] class 15 reserves .....C..
TBF[30] class 16 reserves ......C.
TBF[30] class 17 reserves .......C
TBF[31] class 18 reserves ...C....
TBF[31] class 19 reserves ....C...
TBF[31] class 20 reserves .....C..
TBF[31] class 21 reserves ......C.
TBF[31] class 22 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[0] class 2 reserves ....C...
TBF[0] class 3 reserves .....C..
TBF[0] class 4 reserves ......C.
TBF[0] class 5 reserves .......C
TBF[1] class 6 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 7 reserves ....C...
TBF[1] class 8 reserves .....C..
TBF[1] class 9 reserves ......C.
TBF[1] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[2] class 11 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 12 reserves ....C...
TBF[2] class 13 reserves .....C..
TBF[2] class 14 reserves ......C.
TBF[2] class 15 reserves .......C
TBF[3] class 16 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 17 reserves ....C...
TBF[3] class 18 reserves .....C..
TBF[3] class 19 reserves ......C.
TBF[3] class 20 reserves .......C
TBF[4] class 21 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 22 reserves ....C...
TBF[4] class 23 reserves .....C..
TBF[4] class 24 reserves ......C.
TBF[4] class 25 reserves .......C
TBF[5] class 26 reserves ...C....
TBF[5] class 27 reserves ....C...
TBF[5] class 28 reserves .....C..
TBF[5] class 29 reserves ......C.
AllocTest: remove assumption on max MS class So far the allocation was only tested up to hardcoded MS class 29. Drop that assumption and test for all supported MS classes. Adjust expected test output as necessary. Note: using mslot_class_max() forces allocation for MS classes 30 and 31 for which no actual data is available (will be added in follow-up patches) which current implementation treats differently depending on TX/RX direction - see gprs_alloc_max_dl_slots_per_ms(). Because of that we have to adjust the expected number of allocations in test_successive_allocation() as well. Change-Id: I7737f303d97197ef159b14a19c3312a11f07b433 Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:57:08 +00:00
TBF[5] class 30 reserves .......C
TBF[6] class 31 reserves ...C....
TBF[6] class 32 reserves ....C...
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[6] class 33 reserves .....C..
TBF[6] class 34 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 35 reserves .......C
TBF[7] class 36 reserves ...C....
TBF[7] class 37 reserves ....C...
TBF[7] class 38 reserves .....C..
TBF[7] class 39 reserves ......C.
TBF[7] class 40 reserves .......C
TBF[8] class 41 reserves ...C....
TBF[8] class 42 reserves ....C...
TBF[8] class 43 reserves .....C..
TBF[8] class 44 reserves ......C.
TBF[8] class 45 reserves .......C
TBF[9] class 46 reserves ...C....
TBF[9] class 1 reserves ....C...
TBF[9] class 2 reserves .....C..
TBF[9] class 3 reserves ......C.
TBF[9] class 4 reserves .......C
TBF[10] class 5 reserves ...C....
TBF[10] class 6 reserves ....C...
TBF[10] class 7 reserves .....C..
TBF[10] class 8 reserves ......C.
TBF[10] class 9 reserves .......C
TBF[11] class 10 reserves ...C....
TBF[11] class 11 reserves ....C...
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....C..
TBF[11] class 13 reserves ......C.
TBF[11] class 14 reserves .......C
TBF[12] class 15 reserves ...C....
TBF[12] class 16 reserves ....C...
TBF[12] class 17 reserves .....C..
TBF[12] class 18 reserves ......C.
TBF[12] class 19 reserves .......C
TBF[13] class 20 reserves ...C....
TBF[13] class 21 reserves ....C...
TBF[13] class 22 reserves .....C..
TBF[13] class 23 reserves ......C.
TBF[13] class 24 reserves .......C
TBF[14] class 25 reserves ...C....
TBF[14] class 26 reserves ....C...
TBF[14] class 27 reserves .....C..
TBF[14] class 28 reserves ......C.
TBF[14] class 29 reserves .......C
TBF[15] class 30 reserves ...C....
TBF[15] class 31 reserves ....C...
TBF[15] class 32 reserves .....C..
TBF[15] class 33 reserves ......C.
TBF[15] class 34 reserves .......C
TBF[16] class 35 reserves ...C....
TBF[16] class 36 reserves ....C...
TBF[16] class 37 reserves .....C..
TBF[16] class 38 reserves ......C.
TBF[16] class 39 reserves .......C
TBF[17] class 40 reserves ...C....
TBF[17] class 41 reserves ....C...
TBF[17] class 42 reserves .....C..
TBF[17] class 43 reserves ......C.
TBF[17] class 44 reserves .......C
TBF[18] class 45 reserves ...C....
TBF[18] class 46 reserves ....C...
TBF[18] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[18] class 2 reserves ......C.
TBF[18] class 3 reserves .......C
TBF[19] class 4 reserves ...C....
TBF[19] class 5 reserves ....C...
TBF[19] class 6 reserves .....C..
TBF[19] class 7 reserves ......C.
TBF[19] class 8 reserves .......C
TBF[20] class 9 reserves ...C....
TBF[20] class 10 reserves ....C...
TBF[20] class 11 reserves .....C..
TBF[20] class 12 reserves ......C.
TBF[20] class 13 reserves .......C
TBF[21] class 14 reserves ...C....
TBF[21] class 15 reserves ....C...
TBF[21] class 16 reserves .....C..
TBF[21] class 17 reserves ......C.
TBF[21] class 18 reserves .......C
TBF[22] class 19 reserves ...C....
TBF[22] class 20 reserves ....C...
TBF[22] class 21 reserves .....C..
TBF[22] class 22 reserves ......C.
TBF[22] class 23 reserves .......C
TBF[23] class 24 reserves ...C....
TBF[23] class 25 reserves ....C...
TBF[23] class 26 reserves .....C..
TBF[23] class 27 reserves ......C.
TBF[23] class 28 reserves .......C
TBF[24] class 29 reserves ...C....
TBF[24] class 30 reserves ....C...
TBF[24] class 31 reserves .....C..
TBF[24] class 32 reserves ......C.
TBF[24] class 33 reserves .......C
TBF[25] class 34 reserves ...C....
TBF[25] class 35 reserves ....C...
TBF[25] class 36 reserves .....C..
TBF[25] class 37 reserves ......C.
TBF[25] class 38 reserves .......C
TBF[26] class 39 reserves ...C....
TBF[26] class 40 reserves ....C...
TBF[26] class 41 reserves .....C..
TBF[26] class 42 reserves ......C.
TBF[26] class 43 reserves .......C
TBF[27] class 44 reserves ...C....
TBF[27] class 45 reserves ....C...
TBF[27] class 46 reserves .....C..
TBF[27] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[27] class 2 reserves .......C
TBF[28] class 3 reserves ...C....
TBF[28] class 4 reserves ....C...
TBF[28] class 5 reserves .....C..
TBF[28] class 6 reserves ......C.
TBF[28] class 7 reserves .......C
TBF[29] class 8 reserves ...C....
TBF[29] class 9 reserves ....C...
TBF[29] class 10 reserves .....C..
TBF[29] class 11 reserves ......C.
TBF[29] class 12 reserves .......C
TBF[30] class 13 reserves ...C....
TBF[30] class 14 reserves ....C...
TBF[30] class 15 reserves .....C..
TBF[30] class 16 reserves ......C.
TBF[30] class 17 reserves .......C
TBF[31] class 18 reserves ...C....
TBF[31] class 19 reserves ....C...
TBF[31] class 20 reserves .....C..
TBF[31] class 21 reserves ......C.
TBF[31] class 22 reserves .......C
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
Successfully allocated 160 TBFs
Going to test assignment with many connections, algorithm B
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 2 reserves ....DC..
TBF[2] class 3 reserves ......DC
TBF[3] class 4 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[4] class 5 reserves ......CD
TBF[5] class 6 reserves ...CD...
TBF[6] class 7 reserves .....CD.
TBF[7] class 8 reserves ....DDCD
TBF[8] class 9 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[10] class 11 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....DCD
TBF[12] class 13 reserves ...CDD..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[13] class 14 reserves ...CDDD.
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[14] class 15 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[15] class 16 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[16] class 17 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[17] class 18 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[18] class 19 reserves .....DCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[19] class 20 reserves .....DCD
TBF[20] class 21 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[21] class 22 reserves .....DCD
TBF[22] class 23 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[23] class 24 reserves .....DCD
TBF[24] class 25 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[25] class 26 reserves .....DCD
TBF[26] class 27 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[27] class 28 reserves .....DCD
TBF[28] class 29 reserves ...DCD..
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[29] class 30 reserves ...DDDCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[30] class 31 reserves ....DDCD
TBF[31] class 32 reserves ...DDCD.
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 2 reserves ....DC..
TBF[2] class 3 reserves ......DC
TBF[3] class 4 reserves ...DCD..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[4] class 5 reserves ......CC
TBF[5] class 6 reserves ...CC...
TBF[6] class 7 reserves .....CC.
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[7] class 8 reserves ....DDCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[8] class 9 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCC
TBF[10] class 11 reserves ...DCC..
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....DCC
TBF[12] class 13 reserves ...CCC..
TBF[13] class 14 reserves ...CCCC.
TBF[14] class 15 reserves ...CCCCC
TBF[15] class 16 reserves ...CDDDC
TBF[16] class 17 reserves ...CDDDC
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 2 reserves ....DC..
TBF[2] class 3 reserves ......DC
TBF[3] class 4 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[4] class 5 reserves ......CD
TBF[5] class 6 reserves ...CD...
TBF[6] class 7 reserves .....CD.
TBF[7] class 8 reserves ....DDCD
TBF[8] class 9 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[10] class 11 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....DCD
TBF[12] class 13 reserves ...CDD..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[13] class 14 reserves ...CDDD.
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[14] class 15 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[15] class 16 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[16] class 17 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[17] class 18 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[18] class 19 reserves .....DCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[19] class 20 reserves .....DCD
TBF[20] class 21 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[21] class 22 reserves .....DCD
TBF[22] class 23 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[23] class 24 reserves .....DCD
TBF[24] class 25 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[25] class 26 reserves .....DCD
TBF[26] class 27 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[27] class 28 reserves .....DCD
TBF[28] class 29 reserves ...DCD..
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[29] class 30 reserves ...DDDCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[30] class 31 reserves ....DDCD
TBF[31] class 32 reserves ...DDCD.
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 2 reserves ...DC...
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[2] class 3 reserves ......DC
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[3] class 4 reserves ...DCD..
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[4] class 5 reserves ...CD...
TBF[5] class 6 reserves ...CD...
TBF[6] class 7 reserves ......CD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[7] class 8 reserves ....DDCD
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[8] class 9 reserves ...DCD..
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[10] class 11 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....DCD
TBF[12] class 13 reserves ...CDD..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[13] class 14 reserves ...CDDD.
alloc/test: Add test for interleaved TBF chains MS iniated TCP connections generally result in a sequence of short time UL and longer lasting DL TBFs, being interleaved between several MS. This scenario is not covered by the existing tests. This commit adds a test, that allocates as man as possible TBFs several times with different test modes without clearing the BTS (and thus the TBF list) in between. The number of allocated DL TBFs in each round is expected to be constant. Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-13 12:50:08 +00:00
TBF[14] class 15 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[15] class 16 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[16] class 17 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[17] class 18 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[18] class 19 reserves .....DCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[19] class 20 reserves .....DCD
TBF[20] class 21 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[21] class 22 reserves .....DCD
TBF[22] class 23 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[23] class 24 reserves .....DCD
TBF[24] class 25 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[25] class 26 reserves .....DCD
TBF[26] class 27 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[27] class 28 reserves .....DCD
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[28] class 29 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[29] class 30 reserves ...DDDCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[30] class 31 reserves ....DDCD
TBF[31] class 32 reserves ...DDCD.
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
Successfully allocated 32 TBFs
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
Going to test assignment with many connections, algorithm dynamic
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 2 reserves ....DC..
TBF[2] class 3 reserves ......DC
TBF[3] class 4 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[4] class 5 reserves ......CD
TBF[5] class 6 reserves ...CD...
TBF[6] class 7 reserves .....CD.
TBF[7] class 8 reserves ....DDCD
TBF[8] class 9 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[9] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[10] class 11 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[11] class 12 reserves .....DCD
TBF[12] class 13 reserves ...CDD..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[13] class 14 reserves ...CDDD.
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[14] class 15 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[15] class 16 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[16] class 17 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[17] class 18 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[18] class 19 reserves .....DCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[19] class 20 reserves .....DCD
TBF[20] class 21 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[21] class 22 reserves .....DCD
TBF[22] class 23 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[23] class 24 reserves .....DCD
TBF[24] class 25 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[25] class 26 reserves .....DCD
TBF[26] class 27 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[27] class 28 reserves .....DCD
TBF[28] class 29 reserves ...DCD..
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[29] class 30 reserves ...DDDCD
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[30] class 31 reserves ....DDCD
TBF[31] class 32 reserves ...DDCD.
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[0] class 33 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 34 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 35 reserves ...C....
TBF[0] class 36 reserves .......C
TBF[4] class 37 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 38 reserves .......C
TBF[6] class 39 reserves ...C....
TBF[0] class 40 reserves ....C...
TBF[3] class 41 reserves .......C
TBF[7] class 42 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 43 reserves ....C...
TBF[5] class 44 reserves .......C
TBF[9] class 45 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 46 reserves ....C...
TBF[6] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[11] class 2 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 3 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 4 reserves ....C...
TBF[8] class 5 reserves .......C
TBF[18] class 6 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 7 reserves ......C.
TBF[9] class 8 reserves ....C...
TBF[10] class 9 reserves .......C
TBF[19] class 10 reserves ...C....
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[5] class 11 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[11] class 12 reserves ....C...
TBF[12] class 13 reserves .......C
TBF[21] class 14 reserves ...C....
TBF[8] class 15 reserves ......C.
TBF[0] class 16 reserves .....C..
TBF[18] class 17 reserves ....C...
TBF[13] class 18 reserves .......C
TBF[23] class 19 reserves ...C....
TBF[10] class 20 reserves ......C.
TBF[2] class 21 reserves .....C..
TBF[19] class 22 reserves ....C...
TBF[20] class 23 reserves .......C
TBF[25] class 24 reserves ...C....
TBF[12] class 25 reserves ......C.
TBF[4] class 26 reserves .....C..
TBF[21] class 27 reserves ....C...
TBF[22] class 28 reserves .......C
TBF[27] class 29 reserves ...C....
TBF[20] class 30 reserves ......C.
TBF[5] class 31 reserves .....C..
TBF[23] class 32 reserves ....C...
TBF[24] class 33 reserves .......C
TBF[30] class 34 reserves ...C....
TBF[22] class 35 reserves ......C.
TBF[25] class 36 reserves ....C...
TBF[26] class 37 reserves .......C
TBF[24] class 38 reserves ......C.
TBF[27] class 39 reserves ....C...
TBF[28] class 40 reserves .......C
TBF[26] class 41 reserves ......C.
TBF[31] class 42 reserves .......C
TBF[28] class 43 reserves ......C.
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[0] class 2 reserves ....DC..
TBF[0] class 3 reserves ......DC
TBF[0] class 4 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[0] class 5 reserves ......CD
TBF[1] class 6 reserves ...CD...
TBF[1] class 7 reserves .....CD.
TBF[1] class 8 reserves ....DDCD
TBF[1] class 9 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[2] class 10 reserves .....DCD
TBF[2] class 11 reserves ...DCD..
TBF[3] class 12 reserves .....DCD
TBF[2] class 13 reserves ...CDD..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[3] class 14 reserves ...CDDD.
TBF[4] class 15 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[5] class 16 reserves ...CDDDD
TBF[6] class 17 reserves ...CDDDD
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 2 reserves .....C..
TBF[2] class 3 reserves .......C
TBF[1] class 4 reserves ....C...
TBF[2] class 5 reserves ......C.
TBF[3] class 6 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 7 reserves .....C..
TBF[4] class 8 reserves ......C.
TBF[3] class 9 reserves ....C...
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[5] class 11 reserves ....C...
TBF[7] class 12 reserves ......C.
TBF[5] class 13 reserves ...C....
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[8] class 14 reserves ...C....
TBF[10] class 15 reserves ...C....
TBF[12] class 16 reserves ...C....
TBF[13] class 17 reserves ...C....
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[14] class 18 reserves ...C....
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[9] class 19 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[11] class 20 reserves ......C.
TBF[7] class 21 reserves ....C...
TBF[13] class 22 reserves ......C.
TBF[8] class 23 reserves ....C...
TBF[14] class 24 reserves ......C.
TBF[10] class 25 reserves ....C...
TBF[15] class 26 reserves ......C.
TBF[12] class 27 reserves ....C...
TBF[16] class 28 reserves ......C.
TBF[13] class 29 reserves ....C...
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[17] class 30 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[18] class 31 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 32 reserves .....C..
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[0] class 33 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 34 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 35 reserves ...C....
TBF[0] class 36 reserves .......C
TBF[4] class 37 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 38 reserves .......C
TBF[6] class 39 reserves ...C....
TBF[0] class 40 reserves ....C...
TBF[3] class 41 reserves .......C
TBF[7] class 42 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 43 reserves ....C...
TBF[4] class 44 reserves .......C
TBF[9] class 45 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 46 reserves ....C...
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[11] class 2 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 3 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 4 reserves ....C...
TBF[6] class 5 reserves .......C
TBF[15] class 6 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 7 reserves ......C.
TBF[9] class 8 reserves ....C...
TBF[7] class 9 reserves .......C
TBF[16] class 10 reserves ...C....
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[5] class 11 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[11] class 12 reserves ....C...
TBF[8] class 13 reserves .......C
TBF[17] class 14 reserves ...C....
TBF[8] class 15 reserves ......C.
TBF[0] class 16 reserves .....C..
TBF[14] class 17 reserves ....C...
TBF[9] class 18 reserves .......C
TBF[18] class 19 reserves ...C....
TBF[10] class 20 reserves ......C.
TBF[2] class 21 reserves .....C..
TBF[15] class 22 reserves ....C...
TBF[10] class 23 reserves .......C
TBF[19] class 24 reserves ...C....
TBF[12] class 25 reserves ......C.
TBF[4] class 26 reserves .....C..
TBF[16] class 27 reserves ....C...
TBF[11] class 28 reserves .......C
TBF[20] class 29 reserves ...C....
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[19] class 30 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[5] class 31 reserves .....C..
TBF[17] class 32 reserves ....C...
TBF[12] class 33 reserves .......C
TBF[21] class 34 reserves ...C....
TBF[20] class 35 reserves ......C.
TBF[18] class 36 reserves ....C...
TBF[13] class 37 reserves .......C
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[21] class 38 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[19] class 39 reserves ....C...
TBF[14] class 40 reserves .......C
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[22] class 41 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[15] class 42 reserves .......C
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[23] class 43 reserves ......C.
TBF[7] class 44 reserves .....C..
TBF[8] class 45 reserves .....C..
TBF[9] class 46 reserves .....C..
TBF[10] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[11] class 2 reserves .....C..
TBF[12] class 3 reserves .....C..
TBF[13] class 4 reserves .....C..
TBF[14] class 5 reserves .....C..
TBF[15] class 6 reserves .....C..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[16] class 7 reserves .....C..
TBF[16] class 8 reserves .......C
TBF[17] class 9 reserves .....C..
TBF[17] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[18] class 11 reserves .....C..
TBF[18] class 12 reserves .......C
TBF[19] class 13 reserves .....C..
TBF[19] class 14 reserves .......C
TBF[20] class 15 reserves ....C...
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[20] class 16 reserves .....C..
TBF[20] class 17 reserves .......C
TBF[21] class 18 reserves ....C...
TBF[21] class 19 reserves .....C..
TBF[21] class 20 reserves .......C
TBF[22] class 21 reserves ...C....
TBF[22] class 22 reserves ....C...
TBF[22] class 23 reserves .....C..
TBF[22] class 24 reserves .......C
TBF[23] class 25 reserves ...C....
TBF[23] class 26 reserves ....C...
TBF[23] class 27 reserves .....C..
TBF[23] class 28 reserves .......C
TBF[24] class 29 reserves ...C....
TBF[24] class 30 reserves ....C...
TBF[24] class 31 reserves .....C..
TBF[24] class 32 reserves ......C.
TBF[24] class 33 reserves .......C
TBF[25] class 34 reserves ...C....
TBF[25] class 35 reserves ....C...
TBF[25] class 36 reserves .....C..
TBF[25] class 37 reserves ......C.
TBF[25] class 38 reserves .......C
TBF[26] class 39 reserves ...C....
TBF[26] class 40 reserves ....C...
TBF[26] class 41 reserves .....C..
TBF[26] class 42 reserves ......C.
TBF[26] class 43 reserves .......C
TBF[27] class 44 reserves ...C....
TBF[27] class 45 reserves ....C...
TBF[27] class 46 reserves .....C..
TBF[27] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[27] class 2 reserves .......C
TBF[28] class 3 reserves ...C....
TBF[28] class 4 reserves ....C...
TBF[28] class 5 reserves .....C..
TBF[28] class 6 reserves ......C.
TBF[28] class 7 reserves .......C
TBF[29] class 8 reserves ...C....
TBF[29] class 9 reserves ....C...
TBF[29] class 10 reserves .....C..
TBF[29] class 11 reserves ......C.
TBF[29] class 12 reserves .......C
TBF[30] class 13 reserves ...C....
TBF[30] class 14 reserves ....C...
TBF[30] class 15 reserves .....C..
TBF[30] class 16 reserves ......C.
TBF[30] class 17 reserves .......C
TBF[31] class 18 reserves ...C....
TBF[31] class 19 reserves ....C...
TBF[31] class 20 reserves .....C..
TBF[31] class 21 reserves ......C.
TBF[31] class 22 reserves .......C
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[0] class 1 reserves ...C....
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[1] class 2 reserves .....C..
TBF[2] class 3 reserves .......C
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[1] class 4 reserves ....C...
TBF[2] class 5 reserves ......C.
TBF[3] class 6 reserves ...C....
alloc: Add 'dynamic' allocation algorithm The idea behind this meta algorithm is to automatically select one of the other algorithms based on the system state. Basically algorithm B will be selected if the PDCH usage is low to improve throughput and latency. Algorithm A will be selected to support more concurrent MS. This commit adds a first simple state-less version of this algorithm that always tries B first and only if that fails A is tried afterwards. The following VTY command is added to the 'pcu' node: - alloc-algorithm dynamic Ticket: #1934 Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-14 11:31:48 +00:00
TBF[3] class 7 reserves .....C..
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[4] class 8 reserves ......C.
TBF[3] class 9 reserves ....C...
TBF[6] class 10 reserves ......C.
TBF[5] class 11 reserves ....C...
TBF[7] class 12 reserves ......C.
TBF[5] class 13 reserves ...C....
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[8] class 14 reserves ...C....
TBF[10] class 15 reserves ...C....
TBF[12] class 16 reserves ...C....
TBF[13] class 17 reserves ...C....
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
TBF[14] class 18 reserves ...C....
TBF[9] class 19 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[11] class 20 reserves ......C.
TBF[7] class 21 reserves ....C...
TBF[13] class 22 reserves ......C.
TBF[8] class 23 reserves ....C...
TBF[14] class 24 reserves ......C.
TBF[10] class 25 reserves ....C...
TBF[15] class 26 reserves ......C.
TBF[12] class 27 reserves ....C...
TBF[16] class 28 reserves ......C.
TBF[13] class 29 reserves ....C...
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[17] class 30 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[18] class 31 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 32 reserves .....C..
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[0] class 33 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[1] class 34 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 35 reserves ...C....
TBF[0] class 36 reserves .......C
TBF[4] class 37 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 38 reserves .......C
TBF[6] class 39 reserves ...C....
TBF[0] class 40 reserves ....C...
TBF[3] class 41 reserves .......C
TBF[7] class 42 reserves ...C....
TBF[2] class 43 reserves ....C...
TBF[4] class 44 reserves .......C
TBF[9] class 45 reserves ...C....
TBF[4] class 46 reserves ....C...
TBF[5] class 1 reserves .......C
TBF[11] class 2 reserves ...C....
TBF[1] class 3 reserves ......C.
TBF[6] class 4 reserves ....C...
TBF[6] class 5 reserves .......C
TBF[15] class 6 reserves ...C....
TBF[3] class 7 reserves ......C.
TBF[9] class 8 reserves ....C...
TBF[7] class 9 reserves .......C
TBF[16] class 10 reserves ...C....
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[5] class 11 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[11] class 12 reserves ....C...
TBF[8] class 13 reserves .......C
TBF[17] class 14 reserves ...C....
TBF[8] class 15 reserves ......C.
TBF[0] class 16 reserves .....C..
TBF[14] class 17 reserves ....C...
TBF[9] class 18 reserves .......C
TBF[18] class 19 reserves ...C....
TBF[10] class 20 reserves ......C.
TBF[2] class 21 reserves .....C..
TBF[15] class 22 reserves ....C...
TBF[10] class 23 reserves .......C
TBF[19] class 24 reserves ...C....
TBF[12] class 25 reserves ......C.
TBF[4] class 26 reserves .....C..
TBF[16] class 27 reserves ....C...
TBF[11] class 28 reserves .......C
TBF[20] class 29 reserves ...C....
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[19] class 30 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[5] class 31 reserves .....C..
TBF[17] class 32 reserves ....C...
TBF[12] class 33 reserves .......C
TBF[21] class 34 reserves ...C....
TBF[20] class 35 reserves ......C.
TBF[18] class 36 reserves ....C...
TBF[13] class 37 reserves .......C
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[21] class 38 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[19] class 39 reserves ....C...
TBF[14] class 40 reserves .......C
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[22] class 41 reserves ......C.
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[15] class 42 reserves .......C
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[23] class 43 reserves ......C.
TBF[7] class 44 reserves .....C..
TBF[8] class 45 reserves .....C..
TBF[9] class 46 reserves .....C..
TBF[10] class 1 reserves .....C..
TBF[11] class 2 reserves .....C..
TBF[12] class 3 reserves .....C..
TBF[13] class 4 reserves .....C..
TBF[14] class 5 reserves .....C..
TBF[15] class 6 reserves .....C..
Support uplink multi-slot allocations Before this patch, allocate_usf() was implemented to only allocate 1 USF per TBF, regardless of the available ul_slot mask. As a result, only 1 slot at max was allocated to any TBF. That's a pity because usual multislot classes like 12 support up to 2 UL slots per TBF (in common TS with DL). This patch reworks allocate_usf() to allocate as many UL multislots as possible (given mslot class, current USF availability, TFI availability, related DL TBF slots for the same MS, etc.). As a result, it can be seen that AllocTest results change substantially and maximum concurrent TBF allocation drops under some conditions. That happens due to more USFs being reserved (because each TBF has now more UL slots reserved). Hence now USF exhaustion becomes the usual limitation factor as per the number of concurrent TBFs than can be handled per TRX (as opposed to TFIs previously). Some of the biggest limitations in test appear though because really high end multislot classes are used, which can consume high volumes of UL slots (USFs), and which are probably not the most extended devices in the field. Moreover, in general the curren timeslot allocator for a given multislot class will in general try to optimize the DL side gathering most of the possible timeslots there. That means, for instance on ms class 12 (4 Tx, 4Rx, 5 Sum), 4 DL slots and 1 UL slot will still be selected. But in the case where only 3 PDCHs are available, then with this new multi-slot UL support a TBF will reserve 3 DL slots and 2 UL slots, while before this patch it would only taken 1 UL slot instead of 2. This USF exhaustion situation can be improved in the future by parametrizing (VTY command?) the maximum amount of UL slots that a TBF can reserve, making for instance a default value of 2, meaning usual classes can gather up 2 UL timelosts at a time while forbidding high-end hungry classes to gather up to 8 UL timeslots. Another approach would be to dynamically limit the amount of allowed reservable UL timeslots based on current USF reservation load. Related: OS#2282 Change-Id: Id97cc6e3b769511b591b1694549e0dac55227c43
2021-02-22 16:20:15 +00:00
TBF[16] class 7 reserves .....C..
TBF[16] class 8 reserves .......C
TBF[17] class 9 reserves .....C..
TBF[17] class 10 reserves .......C
TBF[18] class 11 reserves .....C..
TBF[18] class 12 reserves .......C
TBF[19] class 13 reserves .....C..
TBF[19] class 14 reserves .......C
TBF[20] class 15 reserves ....C...
Add multislot classes from latest spec The table B.1 is copy-pasted from 3GPP TS 45.002 and reformatted via Emacs macros into C struct to avoid typos. The test output expanded accordingly. The allocation test expectations and output are adjusted accordingly. Note: classes 35-45 which need TA offset are not properly supported yet. This can be extended once we have such devices available for tests. Change-Id: I1ef2eb99c517f25e7d1e71b985a3e0eb3879eb2c Related: OS#2282
2018-01-23 19:58:49 +00:00
TBF[20] class 16 reserves .....C..
TBF[20] class 17 reserves .......C
TBF[21] class 18 reserves ....C...
TBF[21] class 19 reserves .....C..
TBF[21] class 20 reserves .......C
TBF[22] class 21 reserves ...C....
TBF[22] class 22 reserves ....C...
TBF[22] class 23 reserves .....C..
TBF[22] class 24 reserves .......C
TBF[23] class 25 reserves ...C....
TBF[23] class 26 reserves ....C...
TBF[23] class 27 reserves .....C..
TBF[23] class 28 reserves .......C
TBF[24] class 29 reserves ...C....
TBF[24] class 30 reserves ....C...
TBF[24] class 31 reserves .....C..
TBF[24] class 32 reserves ......C.
TBF[24] class 33 reserves .......C
TBF[25] class 34 reserves ...C....
TBF[25] class 35 reserves ....C...
TBF[25] class 36 reserves .....C..
TBF[25] class 37 reserves ......C.
TBF[25] class 38 reserves .......C
TBF[26] class 39 reserves ...C....
TBF[26] class 40 reserves ....C...
TBF[26] class 41 reserves .....C..
TBF[26] class 42 reserves ......C.
TBF[26] class 43 reserves .......C
TBF[27] class 44 reserves ...C....
TBF[27] class 45 reserves ....C...
TBF[27] class 46 reserves .....C..
TBF[27] class 1 reserves ......C.
TBF[27] class 2 reserves .......C
TBF[28] class 3 reserves ...C....
TBF[28] class 4 reserves ....C...
TBF[28] class 5 reserves .....C..
TBF[28] class 6 reserves ......C.
TBF[28] class 7 reserves .......C
TBF[29] class 8 reserves ...C....
TBF[29] class 9 reserves ....C...
TBF[29] class 10 reserves .....C..
TBF[29] class 11 reserves ......C.
TBF[29] class 12 reserves .......C
TBF[30] class 13 reserves ...C....
TBF[30] class 14 reserves ....C...
TBF[30] class 15 reserves .....C..
TBF[30] class 16 reserves ......C.
TBF[30] class 17 reserves .......C
TBF[31] class 18 reserves ...C....
TBF[31] class 19 reserves ....C...
TBF[31] class 20 reserves .....C..
TBF[31] class 21 reserves ......C.
TBF[31] class 22 reserves .......C
alloc: Make alloc_algorithm_dynamic stateful Currently there is no persistent state being used in alloc_algorithm_dynamic. So algorithm B is even used in persistent high usage scenarios. If there are many active TBFs, multislot assigments are not fair, because MS of a "higher" multislot class get higher troughputs. On the other hand, as long as all PDCH are busy no bandwidth will be wasted even if all MS use algorithm A. This commit modifies alloc_algorithm_dynamic to disable algorithm B when that call fails. It then keeps it disabled until there is a single PDCH which is idle (it is considered idle, if there is at most one active DL TBF assigned to it). Sponsored-by: On-Waves ehf
2015-07-16 16:33:46 +00:00
Successfully allocated 160 TBFs
DL TS allocation: add test case to show TS allocation bug for 2nd DL TBF This patch adds a test case test_2_consecutive_dl_tbfs which expects a current bug with TS allocation for 2nd DL TBF. The test's expectation is corrected along with the bug fix in a subsequent commit Related: OS#1792 Change-Id: I890e4fbb2b64037e051433e70082a197e2a929a6
2016-09-06 12:45:45 +00:00
Testing DL TS allocation for Multi UEs
TBF1: numTs(4)
TBF2: numTs(3)