Return-Path: Errors-To: From: "Daryl Van Vorst" To: "'Max Krasnyansky'" , "'Marcel Holtmann'" Cc: "'BlueZ Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [Bluez-devel] Re: Qualification testing - rfcomm Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:48:16 -0700 Message-ID: <000c01c35071$0c788f60$1a01010a@baked> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <1058838934.3470.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-ID: > On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 01:18, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > Hi Daryl, > > > > > TP/RFC/BV-12-C: > > > "Verify that the IUT handles aggregate flow control > correctly when > > > the Tester, acting as a device conforming to Bleutooth > version 1.0B, > > > controls the data flow using the Flow Control on/off > commands FCon > > > and FCoff. The IUT's device role is of no importance." > > > > > > The command and console output: > > > > > > root@jack-00000000:~>./rctest -s -P 1 -b 20 00:A0:96:1F:83:71 > > > rctest[362]: Connected > > > rctest[362]: Sending ... > > > rfcomm_recv_mcc: Unknown control type 0x18 > > > rfcomm_recv_mcc: Unknown control type 0x28 > > > > > > The IUT does not respond to FCoff with FCoff, and > continues sending > > > data. It also does not respond to FCon with FCon. > > > > we don't have support for flow control on the entire RFCOMM > session. > > But it seems that the FCOFF and FCON should be supported. > The attached > > patch implements support for it, but I am not quite sure if > it is the > > right way to do this. > Is it mandatory ? I always thought it's optional. I asked the same question. Yes, apparently it is mandatory. > > > @@ -1533,6 +1591,9 @@ > > struct list_head *p, *n; > > > > BT_DBG("session %p state %ld", s, s->state); > > + > > + if (test_bit(RFCOMM_TX_THROTTLED, &s->flags)) > > + return; > > > > list_for_each_safe(p, n, &s->dlcs) { > > d = list_entry(p, struct rfcomm_dlc, list); > This part is not ok. We still have to check for timeout. Rest > of patch is fine. > > Max Ok. I'll see if it's not too late to stop testing it. :) -Daryl.