Summary:	ASTERISK-02506: [request] chan_zap.c:7358 pri_dchannel: PRI got event: 8 on Primary D-channel of span 1
Reporter:	zoa (zoa)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2004-09-30 09:06:46	Date Closed:	2011-06-07 14:05:18
Priority:	Major	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	Core/General
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:		Attachments:
Description:	Would it be possible to implement these things in text too instead of just the number as i have no idea what this is. ?
Comments:	By: James Golovich (jamesgolovich) 2004-10-01 09:25:12 There is only the one place in chan_zap.c that doesn't print the event name, and you found it.  Fixed in CVS. By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2004-10-01 20:12:56 added to the 1.0 branch By: zoa (zoa) 2004-10-02 07:35:26 james, I just upgraded to 1.0.1 from cvs and i still get those messages: Oct  2 15:23:26 NOTICE[18450]: chan_zap.c:7358 pri_dchannel: PRI got event: 5 on Primary D-channel of span 1 i am really running Asterisk CVS-Nv1-0-1-10/02/04-13:22:4, and the change is in the chan_zap.c (i checked it) ast_log(LOG_NOTICE, "PRI got event: %s (%d) on %s D-channel of span %d\n", event2str(x), x, pri_order(which), pri->span); From what is see in events, event 5 should be "alarm" or maybe "no more alarm" if the index starts at 0 ( i dont know any C if that wasnt obvious yet) By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2004-10-02 09:44:31 Looks like you didn't restart it Asterisk. By: zoa (zoa) 2004-10-06 03:58:48 I did restart asterisk. I searched some more, looks like that russel is only applying patches to v1.0 and not to 1.0.1 This patch is not in 1.0.1, its only in 1.0 Shouldnt we be updating version 1.0.1 as this is more recent than 1.0 ? By: zoa (zoa) 2004-10-06 04:02:34 so i think 1.0.1 should not be tagged in cvs or bugfixes should (also) be added to 1.0.1 or at least it should  be less confusing, i think  a lot of people are trying to use 1.0.1 because they think its the latest and greatest of the stable releases. edited on: 10-06-04 04:04 By: zoa (zoa) 2004-10-06 04:10:07 ok so now i used -r v1-0 and this would download v1-0-10. (I thought 1-0-10 was the latest one :/) Could this information be added to the download page ? edited on: 10-06-04 04:13 By: denon (denon) 2004-10-06 12:22:03 I'm looking at a server in .au now that is seeing the same thing.  It seems to be happening on v1-0-0, v1-0-1 (but doesn't refer to HDLC) and HEAD. Some useful info: Oct  7 03:01:48 NOTICE[1103390656]: chan_zap.c:7358 pri_dchannel: PRI got event: 8 on Primary D-channel of span 1 16 WCT1/0/16 HDLCFCS (In use) 1-10 clear/in use (only 10 channels on their pri) Span 1: WCT1/0 "Digium Wildcard E100P E1/PRA Card 0" HDB3/CCS/CRC4 ClockSource IRQ misses: 389 22:  111416305        820          0          0   IO-APIC-level  t1xxp Asterisk CVS-Nv1-0-1-10/07/04-02:55:34 built by root@OneNetwork-1 on a i686 running Linux By: denon (denon) 2004-10-06 12:23:18 I'm looking at a server in .au now that is seeing the same thing.  It seems to be happening on v1-0-0, v1-0-1 (but doesn't refer to HDLC) and HEAD. Also, when it happens, they hear an audible "tick" on the pstn side. The user on the SIP phone doesn't hear it. Some useful info: Oct  7 03:01:48 NOTICE[1103390656]: chan_zap.c:7358 pri_dchannel: PRI got event: 8 on Primary D-channel of span 1 16 WCT1/0/16 HDLCFCS (In use) Dual xeon, running HT. Linux OneNetwork-1 2.4.20-8smp #1 SMP Thu Mar 13 17:45:54 EST 2003 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux 1-10 clear/in use (only 10 channels on their pri) Span 1: WCT1/0 "Digium Wildcard E100P E1/PRA Card 0" HDB3/CCS/CRC4 ClockSource IRQ misses: 389 22:  111416305        820          0          0   IO-APIC-level  t1xxp Asterisk CVS-Nv1-0-1-10/07/04-02:55:34 built by root@OneNetwork-1 on a i686 running Linux edited on: 10-06-04 12:47 edited on: 10-06-04 12:51 By: Brian West (bkw918) 2004-10-06 16:11:44 I think the 6's and 8's aren't that big of a deal.  I asked on the mailing list and everyone said it shouldn't be that big of a deal.  Who knows might be wrong. By: denon (denon) 2004-10-06 18:06:31 Actually, the audible pstn click happens exactly at the same time the the error shows up. I'd blow it off as well, but that smells fishy to me. By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2004-10-06 19:45:41 Generally 6 and 8 errors are not a problem, but can be indicitive of either missed interrupts or a timing mismatch.  In any case this is a technical support issue and not a bug in software and should be pursued through digium tech support. It may be helpful to run patlooptest with a loopback connector to determine if it's timing or missed interrupts.