Hi,
I think there is a bug in the tm module of he CVS tree:
timer.c line 283: if (SEND_BUFFER( r_buf )<=0) {
SEND_BUFFER returns -1 on error, and 0 on success, so it should be if (SEND_BUFFER( r_buf )==-1) {
SER always sends "503 Service Unavailable" respond after sending INVITE retransmissions in our test environment. Modifying timer.c solved this problem. I can attach my syslog or udp-log if necessary.
On Mar 13, 2003 at 09:25, Tirp?k Mikl?s mtirpak@sztaki.hu wrote:
Hi,
I think there is a bug in the tm module of he CVS tree:
timer.c line 283: if (SEND_BUFFER( r_buf )<=0) {
SEND_BUFFER returns -1 on error, and 0 on success, so it should be if (SEND_BUFFER( r_buf )==-1) {
Yes, you are right. Thanks. Bug fixed on cvs.
Andrei
At 12:06 PM 3/13/2003, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Mar 13, 2003 at 09:25, Tirp?k Mikl?s mtirpak@sztaki.hu wrote:
Hi,
I think there is a bug in the tm module of he CVS tree:
timer.c line 283: if (SEND_BUFFER( r_buf )<=0) {
SEND_BUFFER returns -1 on error, and 0 on success, so it should be if (SEND_BUFFER( r_buf )==-1) {
Yes, you are right. Thanks. Bug fixed on cvs.
Just for my understanding -- how come that msg_send can return <=0 and still be ok?
Thanks,
-Jiri
On Mar 16, 2003 at 01:35, Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote:
At 12:06 PM 3/13/2003, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Mar 13, 2003 at 09:25, Tirp?k Mikl?s mtirpak@sztaki.hu wrote:
Hi,
I think there is a bug in the tm module of he CVS tree:
timer.c line 283: if (SEND_BUFFER( r_buf )<=0) {
SEND_BUFFER returns -1 on error, and 0 on success, so it should be if (SEND_BUFFER( r_buf )==-1) {
Yes, you are right. Thanks. Bug fixed on cvs.
Just for my understanding -- how come that msg_send can return <=0 and still be ok?
msg_send returns 0 on success and -1 on error.
Andrei
Hi,
The following case occured:
Caller - SER - Called party
->INVITE-> <-TRYING<- ->INVITE-> ->INVITE-> <-TRYING<- <-RINGING<- <-503<- ->ACK-> ...
I think that the 503 response was caused by the second INVITE of SER. When SER sended this INVITE the msg_send function returned 0 which means success, but the tm module processed it as if it were an error. I captured the massages, so I'm sure the INVITE was sent correctly.
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Mar 16, 2003 at 01:35, Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote:
At 12:06 PM 3/13/2003, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Mar 13, 2003 at 09:25, Tirp?k Mikl?s mtirpak@sztaki.hu wrote:
Hi,
I think there is a bug in the tm module of he CVS tree:
timer.c line 283: if (SEND_BUFFER( r_buf )<=0) {
SEND_BUFFER returns -1 on error, and 0 on success, so it should be if (SEND_BUFFER( r_buf )==-1) {
Yes, you are right. Thanks. Bug fixed on cvs.
Just for my understanding -- how come that msg_send can return <=0 and still be ok?
msg_send returns 0 on success and -1 on error.
Andrei _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Thanks, I believed for some unkown reason that msg_send returned number of bytes sent on success.
-jiri
At 09:34 AM 3/17/2003, Tirpák Miklós wrote:
I think that the 503 response was caused by the second INVITE of SER. When SER sended this INVITE the msg_send function returned 0 which means success, but the tm module processed it as if it were an error. I captured the massages, so I'm sure the INVITE was sent correctly.
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote: msg_send returns 0 on success and -1 on error.
-
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul -
Jiri Kuthan -
Tirpák Miklós