Hi,
seems anywhere in smsbox uuid is changed. should be debugged.
Stipe Tolj wrote:
> Stipe Tolj wrote:
>
>> Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>
>>> now, this behaviour is now *confirmed* for a vanila CVS checkout and
>>> fakesmsc usage via gw/smskannel.conf sample config on the following
>>> hosts too:
>>>
Hi,
there should not be any behaviour change except outgoing limit defined in
configuration.
Stipe Tolj wrote:
> Alexander Malysh wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> any objections to this patch or should I commit it to cvs?
>
> if there is a behaviour change in the patch, please provide us time until
Hi,
please go ahead.
Thanos Chatziathanassiou wrote:
> I've noticed that there is a configure option ``--with-sqlite'' and
> ``--with-sqlite3'', but no relevant gw/dlr_sqlite.c and gw/dlr_sqlite3.c
> files.
> I have put in support for SDB_SQLITE in gw/dlr_sdb.c (attached) and was
> wondering if
Thanos Chatziathanassiou wrote:
> I've noticed that there is a configure option ``--with-sqlite'' and
> ``--with-sqlite3'', but no relevant gw/dlr_sqlite.c and gw/dlr_sqlite3.c
> files.
> I have put in support for SDB_SQLITE in gw/dlr_sdb.c (attached) and was
> wondering if someone is already work
I've noticed that there is a configure option ``--with-sqlite'' and
``--with-sqlite3'', but no relevant gw/dlr_sqlite.c and gw/dlr_sqlite3.c
files.
I have put in support for SDB_SQLITE in gw/dlr_sdb.c (attached) and was
wondering if someone is already working on a separate dlr_sqlite.c or if
I
Stipe Tolj wrote:
> Stipe Tolj wrote:
>
>> now, this behaviour is now *confirmed* for a vanila CVS checkout and
>> fakesmsc usage via gw/smskannel.conf sample config on the following
>> hosts too:
>>
>> amd64, 2.6.20-1.2307.fc5 x86_64
>> x86, 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 i686
>>
>> so this is considered as
Alexander Malysh wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> any objections to this patch or should I commit it to cvs?
if there is a behaviour change in the patch, please provide us time until end of
the week to have at least 1-2 more delopers to review.
If no behaviour change, then no objections so far from me.
St
Hi All,
any objections to this patch or should I commit it to cvs?
Alexander Malysh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> attached patch implements outgoing queue limit for bearerbox. Now
> bearerbox doesn't have any outgoing queue limit and therefore it's even
> possible to OOM bearerbox.
>
> The outgoing queue l
