re: [6/6][PATCH]Updates WSAIoctl in ws2_32 to return AcceptEx and GetAcceptExSockaddrs

[Dan Kegel]

slindeneau at gmail.com wrote:
> This patch will allow the patch [1/6] to successfully complete on wine
> and windows. Prior to this patch the conformance tests submitted in
> [1/6] of this series will fail on wine.

It's exciting to see such progress on AcceptEx!

But the wine project likes to have all tests passing after
each patch in a series.
If patch 1/6 adds tests that fail on Wine, they need
to be marked with todo_wine.  If patch 6/6 fixes
the problem in wine that caused those tests to fail,
it should also remove the todo_wine from the test.

Following this rule will help make sure your patches don't turn red on
http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/

[6/6][PATCH]Updates WSAIoctl in ws2_32 to return AcceptEx and GetAcceptExSockaddrs

[Scott Lindeneau]

Thanks. But Julliard has pointed out that my fix in patch [2/6] is
wrong, and it is. It works, but not for the right reason. I didn't
(and still don't) understand how everything in wineserver works
together very well. Without the patch [2/6] the conformance tests will
fail due to a thread race condition (which works by way of allegory
'by skipping the lock'. there isn't really a lock, but thats the
idea). In 'real life' situations the thread race condition is rare,
which is why the previous code 'works' for bug 9787.
> It's exciting to see such progress on AcceptEx!
>
> But the wine project likes to have all tests passing after
> each patch in a series.
> If patch 1/6 adds tests that fail on Wine, they need
> to be marked with todo_wine.  If patch 6/6 fixes
> the problem in wine that caused those tests to fail,
> it should also remove the todo_wine from the test.
>
> Following this rule will help make sure your patches don't turn red on
> http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/