Add flakiness check if there is no received packets in a certain period.

webrtc/p2p/base/port.cc

Index: webrtc/p2p/base/port.cc
diff --git a/webrtc/p2p/base/port.cc b/webrtc/p2p/base/port.cc
index 25b5efd05689ef2e31da3ce4ac512ed4d14c61b4..62e659fcf80b5e0d4207a65487403460b5556f26 100644
--- a/webrtc/p2p/base/port.cc
+++ b/webrtc/p2p/base/port.cc
@@ -1003,7 +1003,6 @@ void Connection::OnReadPacket(
     if (read_state_ == STATE_READABLE) {
       // readable means data from this address is acceptable
       // Send it on!
-
       last_data_received_ = rtc::Time();
       recv_rate_tracker_.Update(size);
       SignalReadPacket(this, data, size, packet_time);
@@ -1444,6 +1443,13 @@ void Connection::OnMessage(rtc::Message *pmsg) {
   delete this;
 }
 
+bool Connection::CheckReceiving(uint32 receiving_timeout) {
+  uint32 min_last_recv_time = rtc::Time() - receiving_timeout;
+  return last_ping_received_ >= min_last_recv_time ||
+      last_ping_response_received_ >= min_last_recv_time ||
+      last_data_received_ >= min_last_recv_time;

[pthatcher1, 2015/06/24 23:42:52]

Instead of using this method, we could just have methods for
last_ping_received(), last_ping_response_received(), and last_data_received(),
and let the p2ptransportchannel.cc handle it from there.

[honghaiz3, 2015/08/05 23:56:56]

If we do that, we will have to expose three public methods to (instead of one
now). 
For this reason, I slightly prefer to the current one which only exposes one
public method. 

+}
+
 size_t Connection::recv_bytes_second() {
   return recv_rate_tracker_.units_second();
 }