RE: [Bluez-devel] Qualification testing.

["Daryl Van Vorst" <daryl@wideray.com>]

Marcel,

> lets go ahead and fix them all.

I got word back on one of the unmentioned bugs and it appears to be a =
bug in
the tester. So now there is only one outstanding item. I don't see why =
this
is a failure:

CFD/BV-01:
Tester sends an l2cap config request in two pieces (using continuation =
flag)
to the IUT. The tester expects to see one of two alternatives:

1. The IUT includes in the response to each request the requested =
options.
2. The IUT first sends an empty response and in its second response it =
sends
all the requested options.

We currently just send two empty responses. I think an empty response =
would
be acceptable if all the requested options were in one request, so I =
don't
see why this fails.

> to be honest, I am already aware of this problem. I ran into it when I
> first started to look at the support for L2CAP retransmission and flow
> control. Our current way of handling the configuration must be changed
> to deal better with L2CAP 1.2 devices and their features. It=20
> is not that
> easy to change and my time was too limited for it. However I=20
> am open for
> any ideas and I am sorry to say that, but your patch looks=20
> like a dirty
> hack.

Ah yes, the expected response. ;)  But you are right, it is a bit of a =
hack.
As far as I can see it's either going to be a hack or a rewrite of that
config request handling code. Do you have a better solution?

Is QoS one of the things you're thinking of?

-Daryl.



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
_______________________________________________
Bluez-devel mailing list
Bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel