Hey Daniel,

I added this code. My reasoning was because if you set the blind uac to 500, for some reason replies were not being forwarded after the t_relay (pick branch was failing IIRC) run some tests and get back to you. If I can restore I shall do so.

Is that ok?

Cheers

Jason

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 at 09:47 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Richard,

with the commit 16e763c32d7a2b9fc451185e028a90b3be758f65 you removed the
setting of last_received code for the branch used for suspending the
transaction (blind uac).

You added some comments:

+                       /*we really don't need this next line anymore
otherwise we will
+                       never be able to forward replies after a
(t_relay) on this branch.
+                       We want to try and treat this branch as 'normal'
(as if it were a normal req, not async)' */
+                       //t->uac[branch].last_received=500;

But a t_relay() will create a new uac/branch, not reusing it.

Do you have some specific use cases reusing that suspended branch? If
not, then I will revert the above change and set the last_received to
make the branch inactive. If yes, we have to identify the case and set
the last received for the rest.

On a report from Alex Balashov with a crash, the suspended branch is
picked for handling cancel and apparently messes some stuff. There is
another active branch due to a t_relay() after t_continue().

Cheers,
Daniel

--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com


_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com