October 2015 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

RE: [PATCH 1/2] reg: simplify root key search
by Michel Zou Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Hi, These two patches correspond to the 1/4 commit by jnvsor in a preliminary work to add reg query functionality: https://github.com/jnvsor/wine/commits/reg.exe I split this commit in two after the review from Stefan Dösinger. I did not want to submit all at once because it seems pretty hard to get patches accepted. M. > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] reg: simplify root key search > To: wine-patches(a)winehq.org > From: stefandoesinger(a)gmail.com > Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:42:15 +0200 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Am 2015-10-04 um 21:14 schrieb Michel Zou: > > From: Jonathan Vollebregt <jnvsor(a)gmail.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michel Zou <xantares09(a)hotmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Dösinger <stefan(a)codeweavers.com> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWEkX3AAoJEN0/YqbEcdMwOx8P/RgHK3cBvTiTegMwxWil8zin > BkTP/Lq7hQjXBP5fOKhpysT6KgtXCqvif9h9gEIJkePszPQurcQrAR6DDwzS+dqT > pHWqwIBwktePQP3bo7Xb0zwWRAePe/KAf80EUF4Vj1sFmQpOExS2SzCPbLylSyle > UlIZfV4LzOMf2rqn70h0p7i+eFymUcRs8Ocejwf6llM9B/M6ETT3+PJ600rOcpYJ > a+/+oJasmBQZTyhOr2xtJe9ZctmmldCIufjH9OYpkkTiSf+fNekbBh6T7Sd1VM0q > 7KxuanloX1RJ33IZUbnaeMi4XPjYGkXwN07Y0Qoz/KbIAqsLqjs6ZX4a7zRttH/R > TiBvk8G5KgOLSA3CGk764krIAT4BhLae1sIV2BdjGnz8LXarRLY442+srLPOW5ko > F5y34SGaSjV90+K27yiAfg/HLMYa6DvT+dqU7K/+jokkir3hl87Hz2mRpWRA2Gge > 5oH4UHnrOXqOzxnmZMvhmMtteEZ7XyCtF97r+Hv1l9XDFY4eVKQMEZN0pMDIwvSx > lIvKRmQyce9RV4XAo1zsYwUFmWBjbiEDouhylgjYMp1yean7+wP6pZDxnmJ6SIxF > w6WXd2+V16rts61joPqXoXndpmPXH1SJINu69v+3YKaTFCeQF1gbGlpf/G9nM85P > 3JmJVKAKRId0MJAKIJZq > =Lqx3 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >

1 0

Re: [PATCH 3/5] ws2_32: Implement a basic synchronous TransmitFile.
by Alexandre Julliard Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

"Erich E. Hoover" <erich.e.hoover(a)wine-staging.com> writes: > This patch adds support for the basic file-transfer operation of > TransmitFile. It uses NtReadFile to obtain "bytes_per_send" chunks of > the file, which it then sends to the destination using WS2_send. NtReadFile potentially allocates memory, you can't use it in an async I/O callback. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: [v3 03/10] wined3d: pass wined3d_texture and sub_resource idx to device_volume_created callback
by Henri Verbeet Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

On 6 October 2015 at 10:36, Riccardo Bortolato <rikyz619(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Store wined3d_texture and sub_resource in d3d8_volume. > Updated the d3d8_volume_LockBox to make use of wined3d_texture_map. > Also updated d3d9, d3d11, ddraw callbacks accordingly > --- This is mostly fine, although "d3d8: Use wined3d_texture_map() in d3d8_volume_LockBox()." would perhaps have been more appropriate as a subject, since the callback change is just a side-effect. The d3d9 volume_init() change could have been deferred until patch 6/10 and would perhaps been more appropriate there, but it doesn't matter too much.

2 3

Signed-off-by support
by Alexandre Julliard Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Folks, As a first step of the implementation of the WineConf decisions, the patch tracker now supports Signed-off-by. You can see the list of people who have signed off on a patch by hovering over the signed-off checkmark in the tracker. In general, people who are listed in the MAINTAINERS file should sign off on other people's patches that touch their area. I'll be working next on implementing a more formal mechanism for assigning reviewing responsibility. To add your sign-off to a patch that you have approved, you need to send a reply to wine-patches with your Signed-off-by header. If you find this inconvenient, I'm open to adding other mechanisms; suggestions are welcome. Finally, starting next week I'm going to require patch authors to include a proper Signed-off-by header on all patches. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: [2/3 v3 resend] user32: Implement semi-stub for FlashWindowEx.
by Marvin Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17092 Your paranoid android. === w8 (32 bit win) === win.c:3418: Test failed: hwnd 00030114 message 0118 === w864 (32 bit win) === win.c:3418: Test failed: hwnd 00030192 message 0118 === w1064 (32 bit win) === win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1010000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x81c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x40000/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c50000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1050000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1410000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 === w864 (64 bit win) === win.c:3418: Test failed: hwnd 0000000000040144 message 0118 === w1064 (64 bit win) === win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1010000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x81c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x40000/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c50000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1050000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1410000: window rect 0,0-1024,768

2 1

Re: [1/3 resend] user32/tests: Add tests for FlashWindow.
by Marvin Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17091 Your paranoid android. === w8 (32 bit win) === win.c:3418: Test failed: hwnd 000601B0 message 0118 === w864 (32 bit win) === win.c:3418: Test failed: hwnd 00060192 message 0118 === w1064 (32 bit win) === win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1010000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x81c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x40000/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c50000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1050000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1410000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 === w1064 (64 bit win) === win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1010000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x81c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x40000/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x41c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c50000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1050000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 win.c:6659: Test failed: 0x80/0x1c10000: window rect 0,0-1024,768 must be in 0,0-1024,728 win.c:6681: Test failed: 0x80/0x1410000: window rect 0,0-1024,768

2 1

Re: [2/2] wbemprox: Add bios name column in Win32_BIOS.
by Hans Leidekker Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 03:51 +0200, Sebastian Lackner wrote: > diff --git a/dlls/wbemprox/builtin.c b/dlls/wbemprox/builtin.c > index 1c960eb..8f51453 100644 > --- a/dlls/wbemprox/builtin.c > +++ b/dlls/wbemprox/builtin.c > @@ -377,7 +377,8 @@ static const struct column col_bios[] = > { prop_releasedateW, CIM_DATETIME }, > { prop_serialnumberW, CIM_STRING }, > { prop_smbiosbiosversionW, CIM_STRING }, > - { prop_versionW, CIM_STRING|COL_FLAG_KEY } > + { prop_versionW, CIM_STRING|COL_FLAG_KEY }, > + { prop_nameW, CIM_STRING } Please keep them sorted.

1 0

Re: [2/3 v3] user32: Implement semi-stub for FlashWindowEx.
by Marvin Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17089 Your paranoid android. === build (build) === Patch failed to apply

1 0

Re: [1/3] user32/tests: Add tests for FlashWindow.
by Marvin Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17088 Your paranoid android. === build (build) === Patch failed to apply

1 0

Re: [3/3] ntdll/tests: Add tests for RtlRegisterWait.
by Marvin Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17078 Your paranoid android. === w7u (32 bit threadpool) === threadpool.c:1364: Test failed: WaitForSingleObject returned 258 threadpool.c:1375: Test failed: WaitForSingleObject returned 0 === w864 (64 bit threadpool) === threadpool.c:613: Test failed: expected userdata >> 16 != 0, got 0

2 1