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 anymoreotherwise 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