mtryfoss left a comment (kamailio/kamailio#4191)
> But to be direct, I'm lacking also a bit the free time to spend on it.
That's my main issue as well :(
Regarding the peer and locks. Seems like this is the only situation where it
might be invalidated under normal operation? I guess that is the reason calling
`Rcv_Process` after the big switch without a lock (code in master) works so
well. I assume most users use a static setup.
```
if(p->is_dynamic &&
config->drop_unknown_peers) {
remove_peer(p);
free_peer(p, 1);
break;
}
```
As a quick fix/work around, would you prefer that approach for `Snd_Message`
too over the proposed change in this PR?
To await doing that until after out of the `critical zone` described earlier.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/4191#issuecomment-2765805534
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <kamailio/kamailio/pull/4191/c2765805...@github.com>_______________________________________________
Kamailio - Development Mailing List -- sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-dev-le...@lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the
sender!
