On 06/21/2010 11:54 PM, Harald Welte wrote:
> At the moment I'm slightly more inclined to actually go for '2', since it is
> a cleaner solution from my point of view.
>
> What do you think?
The consequences for threading are big. As we can do OML and the BTS
might pass away (bsc_unregister_fd) we need locking at quite some places
and these include
- msgb_enqueue/msgb_dequeue (or shortly before)
- bsc_unregister_fd (combined with thread cancellation for the
OML threads)
And we would always have a OML thread per BTS? And an OML msg with 0xff,
0xff, 0xff would go to the BTS holding the BCCH?
I see how the blocking semantic of an opstart and such is very
appealing, we do not need to worry about the queue but the kernel will
queue messages for us.
