April 2016 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: [Tools] testbot/TestAgent: Better indicate the file transfer position/range in case of errors.

by Francois Gouget

Should I resend or change this patch? On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Francois Gouget wrote: > Signed-off-by: Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> > --- > testbot/lib/WineTestBot/TestAgent.pm | 9 +++++---- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/testbot/lib/WineTestBot/TestAgent.pm b/testbot/lib/WineTestBot/TestAgent.pm > index 74e7395..82ca97f 100644 > --- a/testbot/lib/WineTestBot/TestAgent.pm > +++ b/testbot/lib/WineTestBot/TestAgent.pm > @@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ sub _RecvFile($$$$) > if (!defined $r) > { > alarm(0); > - $self->_SetError($FATAL, "got a network error while receiving '$Filename' ($self->{rpc}:$Name:$Pos/$Size): $!"); > + $self->_SetError($FATAL, "got a network error while receiving '$Filename' ($self->{rpc}:$Name:$Pos+$s/$Size): $!"); > return; # out of eval > } > if ($r == 0) > @@ -501,7 +501,7 @@ sub _RecvFile($$$$) > if (!defined $w or $w != $r) > { > alarm(0); > - $self->_SetError($ERROR, "an error occurred while writing to '$Filename' ($self->{rpc}:$Name:$Pos/$Size): $!"); > + $self->_SetError($ERROR, "an error occurred while writing to '$Filename' ($self->{rpc}:$Name:$Pos+$r/$Size): $!"); > $self->_SkipRawData($Name, $Remaining); > return; # out of eval > } > @@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ sub _SendFile($$$$) > if (!defined $r) > { > alarm(0); > - $self->_SetError($FATAL, "an error occurred while reading from '$Filename' ($self->{rpc}:$Name:$Pos/$Size): $!"); > + $self->_SetError($FATAL, "an error occurred while reading from '$Filename' ($self->{rpc}:$Name:$Pos+$s/$Size): $!"); > return; # out of eval > } > if ($r == 0) > @@ -821,7 +821,8 @@ sub _SendFile($$$$) > if (!defined $w or $w != $r) > { > alarm(0); > - $self->_SetError($FATAL, "got a network error while sending '$Filename' ($self->{rpc}:$Name:$Pos+$s/$Size): $!"); > + # Overwrite _Write()'s error message with a more appropriate one > + $self->_SetError($FATAL, "got a network error while sending '$Filename' ($self->{rpc}:$Name:$Pos+$r/$Size): $!"); > return; # out of eval > } > } > -- > 2.8.0.rc3 > > > -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ Linux: It is now safe to turn on your computer.

April 19, 2016

RE: wined3d: Add Nvidia GT 9700M

by Caron Wills

No problem, the learning curve is a little steep when you first start out. I'm still learning, see what I did: https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/121067 (scroll to the bottom, it's pretty nasty looking. The beginning of the patch was okay but the extra noise made the patch less than ideal. For what it's worth, my email client ate the patch, hence the friendly reminder that I should be using git send-email) Unless you are only sending your patch to get comments on what you're still working on (those should go to wine-devel), you should always sign-off on your own work. This means that you have reviewed it and believe it ready for The Wine Project. Basically, it means you are willing to work on this should you cause a regression. As already mentioned, adding "-s" will put the sign-off in place. Then, once your patch passes the automatic tests, the expert in the area will be assigned to review it (in this case, Henri Verbeet). Pay careful attention to their review and address all of the concerns they express over your patch. Provide a response or example where necessary to show your patch is correct OR correct the patch based on their feedback. When the reviewer believes it ready, they sign-off, like this: https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/121376 That means everything checks out and the reviewer also believes it ready. This makes Alexandre's role as the maintainer easier. He will have final say on whether the patch goes in. Be careful with your Julliard Rank: https://wiki.winehq.org/Developer_FAQ#I_sent_a_patch.2C_but_it_got_ignored.… Good Luck! -----Original Message----- From: wine-devel [mailto:wine-devel-bounces(a)winehq.org] On Behalf Of Kim Malmo Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 12:03 PM To: wine-devel(a)winehq.org Subject: wined3d: Add Nvidia GT 9700M Thanks Caron, that's exactly the kind of feedback I wanted. I now feel really stupid. The spacing and line breaks comes from copy/pasting the patch into an email, as I couldn't get git-send-email to work. Apparently, it has it's own package in Ubuntu. That's causing the linebreaks. The spacing I cannot explain, but ofcourse both come out clean when using git-send-email. Thanks for that. That's still no excuse for sending a patch with bad formatting though. Now I just have to figure out how to properly use git-send-email so I can add the comments I want. I'm new to git. Do I need to sign off my own patches? Just curious how it works, I had imagined one of the proper developers had to sign it off.

April 18, 2016

wined3d: Add Nvidia GT 9700M

by Kim Malmo

Thanks Caron, that's exactly the kind of feedback I wanted. I now feel really stupid. The spacing and line breaks comes from copy/pasting the patch into an email, as I couldn't get git-send-email to work. Apparently, it has it's own package in Ubuntu. That's causing the linebreaks. The spacing I cannot explain, but ofcourse both come out clean when using git-send-email. Thanks for that. That's still no excuse for sending a patch with bad formatting though. Now I just have to figure out how to properly use git-send-email so I can add the comments I want. I'm new to git. Do I need to sign off my own patches? Just curious how it works, I had imagined one of the proper developers had to sign it off. -- Actually, you sent it to the right place. There are some things you should have a look at that my eyes are drawn to. First, when reviewed here, the patch has odd line breaks and spacing: https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/121371 It's also missing your signed-off-by line. You can read about how to add that here: https://wiki.winehq.org/Submitting_Patches Your patch should come through clean and match the surrounding style. I had a patch accepted adding the same number of lines in the same general places, pay close attention to how the two differ in appearance: https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/121336 I'm looking at those patches simply by going to this page to make sure everything "looks" okay: https://source.winehq.org/patches/ Note the red "X" indicating the missing sign-off next to your patch. You would do yourself many favors by using git send-email to send patches or in the very least, take a moment to create a patch and check it over once, twice, three times, before sending. I commit to my local tree and then I do: git format-patch origin and compare what's going on and then I make sure Wine still builds after my changes. I catch a lot of mistakes that way (like missing a comma...). Thank you for sending a patch and following up on it. Others might have more feedback for you. -Caron

April 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH] Added Nvidia GT 9700M

by Henri Verbeet

On 18 April 2016 at 18:39, Kim Malmo <berencamlost(a)msn.com> wrote: > From: Kim Malmo <kimmalmo(a)protonmail.ch> > > --- > dlls/wined3d/directx.c | 2 ++ > dlls/wined3d/wined3d_private.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+) > You're missing the Signed-off-by line. Passing -s to format-patch will add it. > + {HW_VENDOR_NVIDIA, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9700M, "NVIDIA GeForce 9700M", DRIVER_NVIDIA_GEFORCE8, 512 }, Is that the correct description string for the card? I'm only finding references to the 9700M GT and 9700M GTS.

April 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH 1/2] d3drm: Implement IDirect3DRM*::CreateObject.

by Aaryaman Vasishta

Right, I'll send another patch with the changes. Cheers, Aaryaman On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 April 2016 at 18:14, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> object = &texture->IDirect3DRMTexture3_iface; > >>> > >> > > My bad, I forgot the & in &texture->IDirect3DRMTexture3_iface, but I'm > sure > > you got what I meant. > > > That's fine. What you'll probably want once you start supporting other > objects is a table that maps the CLSID to a creation function. >

April 18, 2016

Re: ddraw [v3]: Move ComputeSphereVisibility tests to ddraw7

by Henri Verbeet

On 18 April 2016 at 09:02, David Adam <david.adam.cnrs(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thos one with my valid email address. > Please try to match the structure and style of the other tests in ddraw7.c, and please use git send-email for submitting patches.

April 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH 1/2] d3drm: Implement IDirect3DRM*::CreateObject.

by Henri Verbeet

On 18 April 2016 at 18:14, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> object = &texture->IDirect3DRMTexture3_iface; >>> >> > My bad, I forgot the & in &texture->IDirect3DRMTexture3_iface, but I'm sure > you got what I meant. > That's fine. What you'll probably want once you start supporting other objects is a table that maps the CLSID to a creation function.

April 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH 1/2] d3drm: Implement IDirect3DRM*::CreateObject.

by Aaryaman Vasishta

>> object = &texture->IDirect3DRMTexture3_iface; >> >> > My bad, I forgot the & in &texture->IDirect3DRMTexture3_iface, but I'm sure you got what I meant. Cheers, Aaryaman

April 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH 1/2] d3drm: Implement IDirect3DRM*::CreateObject.

by Aaryaman Vasishta

How about this? if (IsEqualGUID(clsid, &CLSID_CDirect3DRMTexture)) > { > struct d3drm_texture *texture; > if (FAILED(hr = d3drm_texture_create(&texture)) > { > *out = NULL; > return hr; > } > object = texture->IDirect3DRMTexture3_iface; > } > What do you think? I'm not sure if declaring variables like that is allowed, but it has been used in similar cases elsewhere so I guess it should be fine. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 April 2016 at 17:45, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > I thought it'd be a good idea to keep it void * for once future objects > > would be implemented (i.e. the one's that have todo marked as true in the > > tests). > That can't work in a sane way. You need a specific type because you > need to dereference the pointer to get at the interface. I.e., notice > how you're casting "object_struct" in every place where you use it. >

April 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH 1/2] d3drm: Implement IDirect3DRM*::CreateObject.

by Henri Verbeet

On 18 April 2016 at 17:45, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I thought it'd be a good idea to keep it void * for once future objects > would be implemented (i.e. the one's that have todo marked as true in the > tests). That can't work in a sane way. You need a specific type because you need to dereference the pointer to get at the interface. I.e., notice how you're casting "object_struct" in every place where you use it.

April 18, 2016