[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] Improve behavior of ast_answer() to not lose incoming frames

[Russell Bryant]

> On 2009-03-16 17:16:20, vadim wrote:
> > /trunk/main/features.c, line 2498
> > <http://reviewboard.digium.com/r/196/diff/1/?file=3069#file3069line2498>
> >
> >     I'm under impression that this whole function ats_bridge_call
> >     suffer from a LOT missing locks

You are correct.

However, let's address this stuff separately, since it's unrelated to this patch.


- Russell


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard.digium.com/r/196/#review549
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2009-03-16 17:16:07, Kevin Fleming wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviewboard.digium.com/r/196/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2009-03-16 17:16:07)
> 
> 
> Review request for Asterisk Developers.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> ast_answer(), when supplied a delay before returning to the caller, use ast_safe_sleep() to implement the delay. Unfortunately during this time any incoming frames are discarded, which is problematic for T.38 re-INVITES and other sorts of channel operations.
> 
> When a delay is not passed to ast_answer(), it still delays for up to 500 milliseconds, waiting for media to arrive. Again, though, it discards any control frames, or non-voice media frames.
> 
> This patch rectifies this situation, by storing all incoming frames during the delay period on a list, and then requeuing them onto the channel before returning to the caller.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /trunk/main/channel.c 182399 
>   /trunk/include/asterisk/channel.h 182399 
>   /trunk/main/features.c 182399 
> 
> Diff: http://reviewboard.digium.com/r/196/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Compile testing only.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kevin
> 
>