Develop integration w04

See merge request !93

I'm not sure the fixes are correct.

                since two rx threads (even/odd) are used by OAI-UE

The compilation of this module does not seem to be necessary,
as far as I have checked. Plus it fails when you run
"build_oai --oaisim --noS1", so let's not compile it.

Develop integration w03

See merge request !89

Hopefully the right argument is passed to this function.

changed the memory allocation of txdataF and beam_weigths

Conflicts:
	openair1/PHY/INIT/lte_init.c
	openair1/PHY/MODULATION/beamforming.c
	openair1/PHY/defs.h
	targets/RT/USER/lte-enb.c

Conflicts:
	targets/RT/USER/lte-enb.c
	targets/RT/USER/lte-softmodem.c

when testing on haswell, using apt-get to install LimeSDR
libraries and includes, it put it in /usr/include, not
/usr/local/include

this commit is here to help debug the previous ones.

It has to be reverted at some point.

We put an abort() at this point in the code, because
if the previous commit is correct, the program will
never comme here.

The previous version did not seem to work properly with
several UEs. I too often ended up with a list 'next' where
next[i] = i, leading to an infinite loop, crashing the
processing.

The sorting functions were hard to understand and too slow
anyway (O(n*n)).

We now use qsort_r and comparison functions, that should
define the same order as the previous version.

One important point is that the "next" lists and the "head"
variable are now considered invalid before calling sort_UE.

So all the code (coming before sort_UE) that looped using those
variables has been rewritten to loop over all possible UEs and
the first instruction of the loop is to exit the loop if the UE
is not 'active'. There is room for improvement here. We will
reintroduce a list of some kind at some point. Let's first
have something that works and then optimize. Today NUMBER_OF_UE_MAX
is 16, that's not a big deal.

Consequently, the add_new_ue and rrc_mac_remove_ue have also
been rewritten, hopefully for the better.

This commit is not a basic work and may introduce some
problems.

The RA process may be in the state:
RA_active == FALSE and wait_ack_Msg4 == 1

Testing only the rnti should be enough, if everything else works
properly.

Also, don't break, just in case. (Not sure it makes a
difference.)

The previous version was calling taus(), which
may return any value in [0..65535].

The new version restricts it to [1024..59999]
(arbitrary values, big enough, and in the valid range).

It also checks that the new RNTI is not already present
in the MAC.

I think we should also check that it's not used by a RA
process.

The "loop" thing may not be the best solution either.

To be refined.

A RA process is not available if
and RA_template[i].wait_ack_Msg4 != 0

We can have RA_active==FALSE and wait_ack_Msg4==1,
in which case the RA process is in use and cannot
be reassigned.

What if it's -1? Is it possible?
We catch the case and abort.

We may do a proper fix if the case happen.
I don't think it will, but who knows...

RRC does not work very well when one UE goes away and comes
back in some situations.

This commit is an attempt at making things work better.

It is probably not the end of the story.

It resulted in wrong log message, leading to complicated
debugging.

Modern UEs have very long UE capabilities.
It disrupts realtime behaviour of the modem.

Let's put a simple log message indicating we got the
UE capabilities.

Here is the problem:
    Sometimes the UE has no PHY context but
    is still present in the MAC with 'ul_failure_timer' = 0 and
    'ul_out_of_sync' = 0. It seems wrong and the UE stays there forever. Let's
    start an UL out of sync procedure in this case.
    The root cause of this problem has to be found and corrected.
    In the meantime, this hack...

This has to be redone at some point.

Here is the problem:
    UE comes. SRB2 is configured via message to RRC.
    At some point the RLC AM is created but not configured yet.
    At this moment (I think) MAC calls mac_rlc_status_ind
    which calls this function. But the init was not finished yet
    and we have a crash below when testing mem_block != NULL.

The "solution" is to test if rlc->input_sdus is NULL.
This is a very dirty hack. I would say the solution
is to use proper locking mechanism because RLC is used
by two threads: PHY/MAC on one hand and RRC on another
hand (I think).