Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses

[Chris Kemp]

On 2003.02.25 09:10 Pawel Kot wrote:
> >>> address@hidden 25 February 2003 00:22:58 >>>
> > IMHO moving the call of the sm_incoming_acknowledge() function into
> the
> > fb3110_message_send() or fb3110_tx_frame_send() can solve this
> problem.
> 
> But this is ugly. Maybe just add another argument for the sm_block()
> functions and use it as the bitmap field? Eg:
> 
> #define GN_SM_RETRY_WHEN_NO_ACK 1
> #define GN_SM_RETRY_WHEN_NO_ANSWER 2
> 
> caller:
> sm_block(GN_SM_RETRY_WHEN_NO_ACK | GN_SM_RETRY_WHEN_NO_ANSWER,
>         waitfor, timeout, data, state)
> or
> sm_block(GN_SM_RETRY_WHEN_NO_ANSWER,
>         waitfor, timeout, data, state)
> or
> sm_block(0,
>         waitfor, timeout, data, state)
> 
> And the optional loops in sm_block() or __sm_block(). What about it?

Rather than add another argument, are these parameters not basically
phone/link dependent (ie they don't change often or at all per run time)? 
If so they can go somewhere in the 'state' system and be setup by the
phone/link drivers.

Chris