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

[Olivier Crête]

Hi,

Can you try testing this branch? and let me know how it works for you?

https://git.collabora.com/cgit/user/tester/libnice.git/log/?h=bellet

Olivier


On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 16:28 -0400, Olivier Crête 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
> _______________________________________________
> nice mailing list
> nice at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nice
-- 
Olivier Crête
olivier.crete at collabora.com