1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 <2023> 2024 2025 | Index | 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 <2023> 2024 2025 |
<== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
---|
Subject: | About "Identical process variable names on multiple servers" with invalid address |
From: | "Perez Juarez, Emilio \(DLSLtd, RAL, LSCI\) via Tech-talk" <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov> |
To: | "tech-talk at aps.anl.gov" <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov> |
Date: | Tue, 18 Apr 2023 09:48:38 +0000 |
Hi all, I hope you are well
Today, I would like to mention an interesting issue that manifest itself in camonitor (with any PV, no matter the server) as follows:
CA.Client.Exception............................................... The problem has been identified and it is caused by a series of unfortunate events described below:
Now, I would like to suggest a solution (which I think is simpler than the alternatives)... according to the CA spec, the data type field of the CA_PROTO_SEARCH response should be 0, while in the response, the same offset is the
version and shouldn't be 0, therefore, we can use that for filtering the CA_PROTO_SEARCH request. My proposal is reflected in the following patch (which hasn't been tested but should work):
diff --git a/modules/ca/src/client/udpiiu.cpp b/modules/ca/src/client/udpiiu.cpp I hope you also find this issue interesting,
Kind Regards,
Emilio
-- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail. |