Re: 3110 statemachine handling (patch)

[Pawel Kot]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Osma Suominen wrote:

Osma,

> continuing with my headaches with the 3110 and statemachine code, I
> finally decided to resolve the problems by writing two (3 actually) new
> functions similar to but still different from the sm_block family.
> I placed them now in nk3110.c but they could as well be placed in
> gsm-statemachine.c depending on the viewpoint. This has started to look
> very much like private problems of the 3110 protocol so that's why I'm
> placing these functions together with the 3110 code.

Thanks for your work and the detailed description. I need to think a bit
longer about the issue. I need to make some decision what to do with
statemachine and I want to make a wise decision :-)

I hope you won't mind waiting till tomorrow.

> Finally, the patch reverts my last change to __sm_block_timeout(), which
> was a desperate attempt at clearing its assumption that it is called
> immediately after sm_message_send. That approach didn't work too well
> but it took a while for me to figure out.

... but this part is applied.

pkot
-- 
mailto:address@hidden :: mailto:address@hidden
http://kt.linuxnews.pl/ :: Kernel Traffic po polsku