From 1f34c9301e6a737890f9d756f87554afc8a96f4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Moises Silva <moy@sangoma.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:08:21 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] freetdm: Remove optimistic sanity check, prints spurious
error messages
---
libs/freetdm/src/ftdm_state.c | 12 +++++++++++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/libs/freetdm/src/ftdm_state.c b/libs/freetdm/src/ftdm_state.c
index 03f2cd8e18..c6d45c3c3c 100644
--- a/libs/freetdm/src/ftdm_state.c
+++ b/libs/freetdm/src/ftdm_state.c
@@ -48,12 +48,22 @@ FT_DECLARE(ftdm_status_t) _ftdm_channel_complete_state(const char *file, const c
ftdm_time_t diff = 0;
ftdm_channel_state_t state = fchan->state;
+#if 0
+ /* I could not perform this sanity check without more disruptive changes. Ideally we should check here if the signaling module completing the state
+ executed a state processor (called ftdm_channel_advance_states() which call fchan->span->state_processor(fchan)) for the state. That is just a
+ sanity check, as in the past we had at least one bug where the signaling module set the state and then accidentally changed the state to a new one
+ without calling ftdm_channel_advance_states(), meaning the state processor for the first state was not executed and that lead to unexpected behavior.
+
+ If we want to be able to perform this kind of sanity check it would be nice to add a new state status (FTDM_STATE_STATUS_PROCESSING), the function
+ ftdm_channel_advance_states() would set the state_status to PROCESSING and then the check below for STATUS_NEW would be valid. Currently is not
+ valid because the signaling module may be completing the state at the end of the state_processor callback and therefore the state will still be
+ in STATUS_NEW, and is perfectly valid ... */
if (fchan->state_status == FTDM_STATE_STATUS_NEW) {
ftdm_log_chan_ex(fchan, file, func, line, FTDM_LOG_LEVEL_CRIT,
"Asking to complete state change from %s to %s in %llums, but the state is still unprocessed (this might be a bug!)\n",
ftdm_channel_state2str(fchan->last_state), ftdm_channel_state2str(state), diff);
- /* We should probably return here with FTDM_FAIL if we don't see this message in production environments for a while (2012-02-16) */
}
+#endif
if (fchan->state_status == FTDM_STATE_STATUS_COMPLETED) {
ftdm_assert_return(!ftdm_test_flag(fchan, FTDM_CHANNEL_STATE_CHANGE), FTDM_FAIL, "State change flag set but state is already completed\n");