Got this today with newer gcc (11.1.0) after system upgrade:
egprs_rlc_compression.cpp:693:9: error: this ‘else’ clause does not guard... [-Werror=misleading-indentation]
The indentation was indeed wrong, provoking a warning in GCC. From code
flow point of view, however, the previous state was fine too, so no
logical change is involved in this commit.
Change-Id: I37bfc8e85daaabbbf10dfd907b305e3e0ec31863
Previous implementation of the Rx path was first checking the APP ID
before checking the lower layer (container type), which was confusing
because the information is then not verified in ascending order in the
protocol stack.
Let's instead, first, pass the pdu to the correct container type
handler, and only once there, let each container type handler verify the
available applications.
Change-Id: Ibe017c1a6e789f45d74c4a5f5f4608298c8c9f91
The logic checking whether the UL TBF had already been sent all the data
(and hence was marked as finished and requesting UL ACK to be sent) was
not taking into account the case where there was still no valid block
stored, ie. when the first received UL data block was discarded for some
reason (ex: because TLLI was not set during content resolution).
Related: OS#1940
Change-Id: I739e67ae1bb40555a362170f26fb98ac69caabb2
Let's avoid different code paths in the loop based on is_tlli_invalid.
Instead, always do the proper storing of the block, and if later on the
corner case is found (no TLLI received while in Content Resolution
process) when checking tlli related stuff, then simply invalidate the
block.
Related: OS#1940
Change-Id: I77afaa617d7ce045c0f6d994fc0d8e03fe69de53
Since a while ago, tbf should always have an MS attached since its
creation, so there's no sense to check for it here.
Change-Id: If056a3fb83b43a48c2a6382fc30c6c81fe2b2651
It could happen that if MS sends first UL blocks without TLLI (wrongly,
due to being in contention resolution), the submitted UL ACK/NACK would
contain an invalid TLLI.
Related: OS#1940
Change-Id: Ibae5df6cfbb56f8f8007cb9fec9c29006d673b72
This allows more easily finding when this specific scenario happens, and
can easily be compared against the PACCH one.
Change-Id: I609792a40fda2a798ca71a0e9f5639d0a0f011d7
Untangle variable assignment at the start of the function. Changes end
up in same kind of assignment, but are far easier to understand based on
the variable use later on.
* reserved_{dl,ul}_slots contain mask of TS either "previously-reserved" or
"intended to be reserved now" based on MS's ms_class.
* {dl,ul}_slots contain a derived mask from the one above, filtered
further based on more factors like type of allocation requested (multi
vs single), available USFs (UL), etc.
Change-Id: If3cfa82f8b793a87e97145ee8a6fc0fe1a61add6
Store direction check to simplify the code.
Get rid of 2-step LOGP to avoid multi-row logs in gsmtap log.
Change-Id: Ia2e061da82ddce564b2d768d8ade1672c22934e2
While libosmogb / ns2 supports that natively in the VTY, the PCU
doesn't want to use the complexities of the full NS2 vty.
Change-Id: I7bfbad46582e65e5ad2ac0cc66545538bc632df8
Related: SYS#5427
The code path running into first call of "create_packet_access_reject()"
is a superset condition of the second one, so the second one will never
be hit.
As a result first, this block:
"""
else if (tbf == tbfs->ul_ass && tbf->direction == GPRS_RLCMAC_DL_TBF)
if (tbf->ul_ass_state_is(GPRS_RLCMAC_UL_ASS_SEND_ASS_REJ))
msg = tbfs->ul_ass->create_packet_access_reject();
else
msg = tbfs->ul_ass->create_ul_ass(fn, ts);
"""
Can be simplified into:
"""
else if (tbf == tbfs->ul_ass && tbf->direction == GPRS_RLCMAC_DL_TBF &&
!tbf->ul_ass_state_is(GPRS_RLCMAC_UL_ASS_SEND_ASS_REJ))
msg = tbfs->ul_ass->create_ul_ass(fn, ts);
"""
Next, one can see that previous condition still forces
!tbf->ul_ass_state_is(GPRS_RLCMAC_UL_ASS_SEND_ASS_REJ) to be always true
if we ever reach that code, so it can be dropped.
Change-Id: I62e2255e28fc4f43fe0a31259ebf18ad00e7e357
Tbftest expectatins need to change because 5000/20 = 250 < 255, hence
the message is now sent as units of 20ms instead of seconds.
Related: OS#3928
Change-Id: I48b34b94b1a5dfb046a3a6cf8a0d944a7c9b6754
Document the function, make it look similar to usual TBF creation path
tbf_alloc_ul()->tbf_alloc_ul_tbf->tbf::setup(), which it mimics with
some differences.
Get rid of unneeded stuff like creating MS and settings its TLLI (that's
already done in only caller of the function). There's no need for
calling update_ms() either.
Change-Id: I61df2e4f0f0df1f8db941741a2d35a2319252c5e
Now that we finally handle N3101 and N3103 correctly, we can fix abuse
of T3169 we were doing to make sure TBFs were freed.
According to 3GPP TS 44.060, T3169 should be armed:
* N3101_MAX reached
* N3103_MAX reached
Furthermore, when T3169 is enabled, the tbf should be in state
RELEASING so that its USF is not used.
See full description: https://osmocom.org/issues/5033#note-2
Related: OS#5033
Change-Id: I2cec531e2633281b88f69ba065c0105580c81076
During RELEASING state the TFI, USFs, etc. are still reserved and
assigned to the TBF, and hence the TBF may still use it.
If callers of this function rely on not taking TBFs under RELEASING
state, they should check that explicitly.
It still makes sense being to operate on RELEASING TBFs, since under
some circumstances the TBF may go under a previous state. See for
instance 3GPP TS 44.060 sec 8.1.1.3a.2:
"""
If N3101 reaches the value N3101max, the network shall stop sending
PACKET UPLINK ACK/NACK messages to the mobile station for that TBF
and shall start timer T3169 for the TBF. If an RLC/MAC block is received
from the TBF when timer T3169 is running, the network shall stop timer
T3169 and resume sending PACKET UPLINK ACK/NACK messages to the TBF.
When T3169 expires, the network may consider the TBF as released and
reuse the TFI value.
"""
Change-Id: Ibb471e727388512d42794d3faa26597e2545b852
Use recently added PDCH UL Controller to verify expectancies.
Test test_packet_access_rej_prr is rewritten since it didn't make sense
as it was before, since it relied on osmo-pcu not checking stuff
properly to trigger the reject. The RACH requests are changed to
allocate 8 SBAs (maximum of 7 concurrent USFs). Allocating the SBA
doesn't reserve a USF, that happens at PKT RESOURCE REQUEST, hence we
end up exhausting resources there and triggering the REJECT at that
point.
Previous version of the patch allocated TBFs directly through RACH req,
and then submitted an extra PKT RESOURCE REQUEST which PCU didn't expect
to trigger the reject.
Change-Id: I157e72160317340ee7742c78c62a25d3d98fc01e
That field is not needed anymore, and it works only under the assumption
that only 1 poll request can be active at a time per TBF, which is not
true.
Change-Id: I9b8bed7741d385bab4cd8c64b841a78a02a05fe1
That field is not needed anymore, and it works only under the assumption
that only 1 poll request can be active at a time per TBF, which is not
true.
Change-Id: I63a34a702f028b871530fb7caeb13e8ea1cc78ac
Value 'false' is always passed by all callers of the function, so
there's no need to pass it. Furthermore, since it's false, there's no
need to access poll_fn since RRBP will always be invalid.
Change-Id: Ia48ce2a021865e76e813dedb22aca9c2522c5693
The poll_state logic was part of previous implementation (prior to pdch
ul controller) where the ssumption was that TBF could only had 1 POLL
request in transit, which is really not true. With current
infrastructure we don't need this state tracking at all.
Change-Id: Ie5b807ccd38aa736ae11b3310ca61ad0156ca4d4
The related ul_ass_state already implies polling is ongoing since we are
waiting for an ACK to be received from MS. Hence there's no need to
check poll_state there.
Change-Id: I5e12280a6835407fa452bd4d5df799d2672790ec
There's no good reason to allow only for 1 concurrent POLL requested to
a TBF, it was onyl done this was as an implementation limitation factor.
It can well happen that several multiple POLLs may be in transit at the
same time, eg to get DL ACK/NACK as well as to get a CTRL ACK for a Pkt
Cell Change Continue (NACC).
Change-Id: Ic4080db684a4626cae90dd574d123081981284ca
This API is not really needed anymore, since anyway it works under the
assumption there can only be 1 POLL in transit per TBF, which isn't
necessarily true.
Change-Id: I875f51cade95faeb2d79dcebfead4c83e23a731b
This allows easily checking the initial reason to trigger the poll when
either it is received or times out.
Later on this reason can be transformed into an FSM event and sent to
the related FSM.
Related: OS#5020
Change-Id: Ie8fefd1f47ad674ce597a8065b15284088956bde
Make sure an unreserved FN is picked and reserved when allocating and
scheduling an SBA.
In practice this has no change in behavior right now, since anyway using
an offset of 52 FNs ensure no USF or POLL has alredy been scheduled that
far in the future. Since it's also impossible to allocate more than 1
SBA per PDCH and RTS FN, we are also safe about multiple SBAs being
allocated, because we use a hardcoded offset of 52.
However, that could change in the future, when we dynamically tweak the
current offset of 52 FN based on information from BTS about its AGCH
queue load:
* If load is high, we may need to increase the offset since it
will take more time for the BTS to transmit the TBF and hence we must
reserve a TBF starting time further in the future (higher FN).
* If load turns low, we may schedule next SBA a bit more nearby in time
than the previously allocated SBA, hence here there could be a
collision.
Related: OS#5020
Change-Id: I2d4e21e2307de6c17748e8da5c7e149c947a7eb9
Pau Espin
Harald Welte