Re: [SR-Users] t_reply in failure route with dialog module

2013-12-28 Thread Kelvin Chua
when i remove the t_reply("404","not found") in failure_route, everything works alright. note: i intend to use the t_reply if there are no more branches available, instead of a self generated 408 then, putting a t_release() on event_route[dialog:failed] got rid of the error WARNING: tm [t_

Re: [SR-Users] t_reply in failure route with dialog module

2013-12-27 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, do you get also a log message like: CRITICAL: dialog [dlg_hash.c:794]: log_next_state_dlg(): bogus event 4 in state 5 for dlg ... ? The warning itself should be harmless. Maybe you can grab all the log messages with debug=3, that will help to get more hits about what happens. Cheers

Re: [SR-Users] t_reply in failure route with dialog module

2013-12-27 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, I kind of forgot about this thread ... The backtrace is clean and it doesn't show like a block/infinite loop when you took it. Are you sure you took it when kamailio used 100%CPU? How many times you run 'n' after backtrace? The loop in cbp could have tens of iterations. Maybe you ca

Re: [SR-Users] t_reply in failure route with dialog module

2013-12-25 Thread Kelvin Chua
Hi guys, was this issue resolved? I encountered this issue also (4.0.5), in failure_route, i used t_reply("404","not found") never sent out, instead i get this in logs, WARNING: tm [t_lookup.c:1564]: t_unref(): WARNING: script writer didn't release transaction Kelvin Chua On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 a

Re: [SR-Users] t_reply in failure route with dialog module

2013-11-25 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, the backtrace is ok for the moment. I will look over it and come back with results. Cheers, Daniel On 11/25/13 12:10 PM, Efelin Novak wrote: Hi Daniel, sorry it took me more than I expected. Is this sufficient? Meanwhile I found out that this happens when fr_inv_timer triggers and d

Re: [SR-Users] t_reply in failure route with dialog module

2013-11-25 Thread Efelin Novak
Hi Daniel, sorry it took me more than I expected. Is this sufficient? Meanwhile I found out that this happens when fr_inv_timer triggers and dialog module is turned on. Backtrace: bt #0 futex_release (lock=0xb4b90798) at ../../mem/../futexlock.h:137 #1 next_state_dlg (dlg=dlg@entry=0xb4bc5a38,

Re: [SR-Users] t_reply in failure route with dialog module

2013-11-20 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, I will investigate more -- meanwhile had some traveling. It would speed up if you can send the backtrace of one process that blocks when you applied the patch. You need to connect with gdb to it: gdb /path/to/kamailio _PID_ replace _PID_ with the pid of blocked kamailio process. Che

Re: [SR-Users] t_reply in failure route with dialog module

2013-11-15 Thread Efelin Novak
Hi Daniel, thanks for a reply. I applied the patch and now the Kamailio just prints WARNING: tm [t_lookup.c:1564]: t_unref(): WARNING: script writer didn't release transaction and than freezes without any log. It does not resend the incoming "winning" failure reply neither response to any other

Re: [SR-Users] t_reply in failure route with dialog module

2013-11-15 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, can you try attached patch? Let me know if all goes fine and I will commit it to the repository. Cheers, Daniel On 11/15/13 10:25 AM, Efelin Novak wrote: Hi, when I use t_reply("505", "Error"); in my failure route, the response is not forwarded and following is written into a log:

[SR-Users] t_reply in failure route with dialog module

2013-11-15 Thread Efelin Novak
Hi, when I use t_reply("505", "Error"); in my failure route, the response is not forwarded and following is written into a log: kamailio[26216]: WARNING: tm [t_lookup.c:1559]: t_unref(): WARNING: script writer didn't release transaction plus next line is written exactly 416000 times into a log a