Comment # 9
on bug 11403
from Nathan Flowers
(In reply to Pascal Quantin from comment #8)
> (In reply to Bill Meier from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Pascal Quantin from comment #6)
> > > (In reply to Bill Meier from comment #4)
> > > > (I'll take a look at this)
> > >
> > > OK Bill, I will let you continue on this :)
> >
> > Actually, you're ahead of me doing the same research I was doing (looking at
> > the spec, etc) so I'm happy to let you continue... :)
> >
> > OK ?
>
> OK I will give it a try then (unless you feel very interested by this one
> ;), I just had my comment almost written when I saw your post so I
> considered I should still publish it).
>
> Nathan, could you clarify my query in comment #5? Apart from the timestamp
> bug I'm gonna fix, were you simply puzzled by the field name?
So the two key items are 1)the pause time is not be decoded correctly (the
frame in the attached screenshot if decoded correctly should have a pause time
of 65535 quanta and 2)the timestamp field is not valid for a standard Pause
(non Priority Flow Control).
As you noted the terminology being used does not seem to be consistent with the
IEEE 802.3 spec terms associated with flow control frames.
I think make the terminology consistent would certain reduce the chance of any
confusion.
But the primary objective would be the proper decode
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.