Bug in smsc_emi2.c?

This diff is suggested by Francesco, it makes
sense to me.  Could someone please respond and
say if we're crazy or it should be included?

smsc_emi2.c::
373c371
<     if(msg->sms.pid != 0) {
---
>     if((msg->sms.pid  >=0) && (msg->sms.pid < 256) ) {

Thanks, all.  See below for the use case that fails without this diff.
____________________________________________
Steve Rapaport
CTO, A-Tono
Via Amedei, 15 - Milano 20123
Cel.: +39 348 6431573
Fax : +1 617 687 0415



-----Original Message-----
From: francesco emmi [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 12:09 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Explaining PDU trouble


Dear Mr. Rodrigues,

As I wrote in the past, we have tried to send 8-bit SMS with EMI2 without
success. We set  PID to 0 and UDH to F5. Although we didn't
receive the SMS correctly, we could analize the PDU received by mobile:


07919333852802004414D0E5F61CFD6E975DEE321D39F5203012911504408C1180
0A06F4343DEC9E0102062A0003050D012E5345512115030000001C0000001C000000841E0081
01FF
9E0101080300FFFF3B0003BE230E247C439E447C047C162A429AF7051603429EF7051603226A
F70B
42A2F74D16062278F70B16062282F70B16062282F717160C2278F70B1606226A3714160342A2
F702
960142A4F702960142A2F7029601429EF702.


As you can see, for some reason unknown, PID was changed to 39.
We thought the problem was in the kannel code. Look at smsc_emi2.c
(in the CVS version) line 373:

 if(msg->sms.pid != 0) {
         emimsg->fields[E50_RPID] = octstr_format("%04d", msg->sms.pid);


As we want to set PID to 0, no octet is created in our PDU.
Changing the code in a way such this:

 if((msg->sms.pid >= 0) && (msg->sms.pid<256)) {
        emimsg->fields[E50_RPID] = octstr_format("%04d", msg->sms.pid);

finally we could receive the 8-bit SMS corectly whose PDU was:

07919333852802004414D0E5F61CFD6E975DEE321D00F5203012911504408C1180
0A06F4343DEC9E0102062A0003050D012E5345512115030000001C0000001C000000841E0081
01FF
9E0101080300FFFF3B0003BE230E247C439E447C047C162A429AF7051603429EF7051603226A
F70B
42A2F74D16062278F70B16062282F70B16062282F717160C2278F70B1606226A3714160342A2
F702
960142A4F702960142A2F7029601429EF702

As you can see, PID now is 0.

So, do you think the piece of code I underlined, is a bug?

I'll include a diff file for smsc.emi2.c

Thank in advance

Francesco Emmi