Re: [sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] tm: reset T_ASYNC_CONTINUE flag in t_suspend (#955)

2017-01-30 Thread Federico Cabiddu
Merged #955. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/955#event-941479429___ sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org

Re: [sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] tm: reset T_ASYNC_CONTINUE flag in t_suspend (#955)

2017-01-30 Thread Federico Cabiddu
Thanks, should I backport it too? On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla < notificati...@github.com> wrote: > It's a bit foggy the purpose right now, or better said the duration when > that flag is needed. I didn't have the time to dig into it too much and > don't remember the

Re: [sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] tm: reset T_ASYNC_CONTINUE flag in t_suspend (#955)

2017-01-30 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
It's a bit foggy the purpose right now, or better said the duration when that flag is needed. I didn't have the time to dig into it too much and don't remember the full purpose for it right now. I expected to be related to the fact of choosing the final response while a suspended branch is

Re: [sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] tm: reset T_ASYNC_CONTINUE flag in t_suspend (#955)

2017-01-30 Thread Federico Cabiddu
Thinking it better, wouldn't moving the flag reset at the end of t_continue make the check in t_reply useless? I have to admit that I don't fully understand that check anyway :) On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Federico Cabiddu wrote: > You're right, I'll try this 2nd

Re: [sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] tm: reset T_ASYNC_CONTINUE flag in t_suspend (#955)

2017-01-30 Thread Federico Cabiddu
You're right, I'll try this 2nd approach. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla < notificati...@github.com> wrote: > Unless you think it should be better to be reset when t_continue() is > finished instead of inside t_suspend(), you can merge it. > > — > You are receiving

Re: [sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] tm: reset T_ASYNC_CONTINUE flag in t_suspend (#955)

2017-01-30 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Unless you think it should be better to be reset when t_continue() is finished instead of inside t_suspend(), you can merge it. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] tm: reset T_ASYNC_CONTINUE flag in t_suspend (#955)

2017-01-30 Thread Federico Cabiddu
Currently it's only used in that t_reply check. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla < notificati...@github.com> wrote: > Probably it's ok -- couldn't see a side effect right now. Is it > tested/used anywhere else than src/modules/tm/t_reply.c:1123? > > — > You are receiving

Re: [sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] tm: reset T_ASYNC_CONTINUE flag in t_suspend (#955)

2017-01-30 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Probably it's ok -- couldn't see a side effect right now. Is it tested/used anywhere else than src/modules/tm/t_reply.c:1123? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

[sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] tm: reset T_ASYNC_CONTINUE flag in t_suspend (#955)

2017-01-29 Thread Federico Cabiddu
Related to http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/2017-January/095772.html Resetting the flag in t_suspend allows adding new branches in a failure route while suspending the transaction. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: