[Openais] Crashing because all SU not yet operational

[Ola Lundqvist]

Hi

Thanks a lot for that information, now it works a lot better.

I got the following warnings when compiling however. I think that should
be fixed.

amfsg.c:1165: warning: `active_sus_needed' might be used uninitialized
in this function
amfsg.c:1166: warning: `standby_sus_needed' might be used uninitialized
in this function

Thanks a lot

// Ola

Hans Feldt wrote:
> 
> This problem is related to the patch sent by Lars, "Amf node leave and
> join #2" which will probably solve your problem. Please test with that
> patch or wait until we have committed it.
> 
> Another thing: please include AMF (if AMF related) in the subject line
> of your emails to the list, easier for people to find and filter...
> 
> Regards,
> Hans
> 
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> The next crash I got is when all components have been initiated and when
>> it try to start up things.
>>
>> Here is a log of what happens:
>> Sep  1 14:45:50.693455 [sync.c:0318] This node is within the primary
>> component and will provide service.
>> Sep  1 14:45:50.693580 [clm.c:0510] CLM CONFIGURATION CHANGE
>> Sep  1 14:45:50.693634 [clm.c:0511] New Configuration:
>> Sep  1 14:45:50.693693 [clm.c:0513]     r(0) ip(192.168.0.1)
>> Sep  1 14:45:50.693769 [clm.c:0515] Members Left:
>> Sep  1 14:45:50.693823 [clm.c:0520] Members Joined:
>> Sep  1 14:45:50.693879 [clm.c:0522]     r(0) ip(192.168.0.1)
>> Sep  1 14:45:50.693940 [sync.c:0318] This node is within the primary
>> component and will provide service.
>> Sep  1 14:45:50.694026 [totemsrp.c:1607] entering OPERATIONAL state.
>> Sep  1 14:45:50.701111 [clm.c:0605] got nodejoin message 192.168.0.1
>> Hello world from
>> safComp=OAM-C-1,safSu=OAM-SU-1,safSg=SS7-SG-1,safApp=SS7-A-1
>>
>>>> WARNING<< Timestamp: 1157121953:807037
>>
>> ProcessType:SequenceNumber  161:1
>>     CP:0  ss7osdpn.c   2690     0  1295     0     0     0    1102
>>
>>
>> Sep  1 14:45:53.727109 [amfcluster.c:0130] Cluster: starting
>> applications.
>> (inservice=0) (active_sus_needed=1) (standby_sus_needed=1)
>> assignment VI - partial assignment with SIs drop outs
>> (inservice=0) (assigning active=1) (assigning standby=0) (assigning
>> spares=0)
>> su_active_assign=1, si_total=1,ass_to_su=1
>> while su...1 != 2, 0 == 1, 0 > 0
>> Not in service.
>> while su...1 != 2, 0 == 1, 0 > 0
>> Not in service.
>> No one to assign. No SU in service yet.
>>
>>
>> The last lines are my local changes to make sure that it do not crash.
>> However what I determined is that nothing will be started anyway as the
>> service units are not in service...
>>
>> This is a scetch patch from the local changes that I have done. I have
>> removed manually from the patch output all the print statements that I
>> had, so it may not apply cleanly.
>>
>> ===================================================================
>> --- exec/amfsg.c        (revision 1235)
>> +++ exec/amfsg.c        (working copy)
>> @@ -964,6 +971,7 @@
>>                         amf_su_get_saAmfSUNumCurrStandbySIs (su) > 0) {
>>
>>                         su = su->next;
>> +                        printf("Not in service.\n");
>>                         continue; /* Not in service */
>>                 }
>>
>> @@ -1118,15 +1127,18 @@
>>          */
>>         inservice_count = (float)su_inservice_count_get (sg);
>>
>> -       active_sus_needed = div_round (
>> -               sg_si_count_get (sg) * sg->saAmfSGNumPrefActiveSUs,
>> -               sg->saAmfSGMaxActiveSIsperSUs);
>> +        active_sus_needed = div_round (
>> +            sg_si_count_get (sg) * sg->saAmfSGNumPrefActiveSUs,
>> +            sg->saAmfSGMaxActiveSIsperSUs);
>>
>> -       standby_sus_needed = div_round (
>> +        standby_sus_needed = 0;
>> +        if (sg->saAmfSGMaxStandbySIsperSUs > 0) {
>> +            standby_sus_needed = div_round (
>>                 sg_si_count_get (sg) * sg->saAmfSGNumPrefStandbySUs,
>>                 sg->saAmfSGMaxStandbySIsperSUs);
>> +        }
>>
>> and then around
>>
>> @@ -1166,29 +1178,30 @@
>> -       assert (assigned > 0);
>> +       /*assert (assigned > 0);*/
>> +        printf("No one to assign. No SU in service yet.\n");
>>
>>
>>
>> So what I want to know, is why the SU may not be considered operational
>> and if I have done something wrong with my AMF application.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> // Ola
>>
> 


-- 
 Ola Lundqvist, Civilingenjör Informationsteknologi
 TietoEnator R&D Services AB, Telecom Platforms
 Email:  ola.lundqvist at tietoenator.com
 Phone:  +46 (0)54-29 42 17