[libnice] Inquiry re: commit 1ab9d7c104, “conncheck: Separate valid and succeeded states"

[Chad Phillips]

Oliver,

Once you get an updated patch for the issue, I’m happy to test it out. For
now I’m running a pre 0.14 version that reverts the commit I referenced,
and it seems to be getting along ok.

Chad

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Olivier Crête <olivier.crete at collabora.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> That is really interesting,
>
> On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 18:42 +0200, Lorenzo Miniero wrote:
>
> 2017-02-27 22:30 GMT+01:00 Chad Phillips <chad at apartmentlines.com>:
>
> Some git bisect work got me to the problem commit:
>
> 1ab9d7c104978ea1904aaaad708c1c8c23c77592 is the first bad commit
> commit 1ab9d7c104978ea1904aaaad708c1c8c23c77592
>
>
> conncheck: Separate valid and succeded states
>
>
> He then tried a patch another user referenced on our issue page, and it
> worked instead: https://phabricator.freedesktop.org/D735
>
>
> I've been looking at this patch a couple times and the reason I didn't
> merge it is that I don't understand what it tries to accomplish.
>
> But now I think I figured it out. It seems that libnice sets the
> "nominated" flag on all the pairs when it creates them as a controlling
> agent, which seems wrong. I think it should set the flag only when it gets
> a reply... And this is why propagating the flag fixes it in some cases, but
> I think we need to go over the whole conncheck code and make it set the
> nominated flag at the right time (after the reply is received!).
>
> --
>
> Olivier Crête olivier.crete at collabora.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nice/attachments/20170410/9d04694e/attachment-0001.html>