Re: [PATCH 3/3] kernel32/tests: Test for 'all processors' now valid (try 2).

[Charles Davis]

Erich Hoover wrote:
> Real Name:
>    Erich Hoover
> Description:
>    Patch 2 added support for the "all processors" flag, so this is
> no-longer a todo.  This version is against the revised patch 1, please
> note that patch 2 is unchanged.
> ChangeLog:
>    kernel32/tests: Test for 'all processors' now valid.
> Patches 2 and 3 should be merged. If patch 2 is applied without patch 3,
> then we'll get "test succeeded inside todo block" failures.

Chip

[PATCH 3/3] kernel32/tests: Test for 'all processors' now valid (try 2).

[Erich Hoover]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Charles Davis <cdavis(a)mymail.mines.edu> wrote:
> Erich Hoover wrote:
> > Real Name:
> >    Erich Hoover
> > Description:
> >    Patch 2 added support for the "all processors" flag, so this is
> > no-longer a todo.  This version is against the revised patch 1, please
> > note that patch 2 is unchanged.
> > ChangeLog:
> >    kernel32/tests: Test for 'all processors' now valid.
> > Patches 2 and 3 should be merged. If patch 2 is applied without patch 3,
> > then we'll get "test succeeded inside todo block" failures.
>
> Chip

What is the appropriate log notation for this? Is it
"ntdll,kernel32/tests" ?  Thanks.

Erich Hoover
ehoover(a)mines.edu

[PATCH 3/3] kernel32/tests: Test for 'all processors' now valid (try 2).

[Henri Verbeet]

On 19 February 2010 15:30, Erich Hoover <ehoover(a)mines.edu> wrote:
> What is the appropriate log notation for this? Is it
> "ntdll,kernel32/tests" ?  Thanks.

You'd just use the subject from patch 2, "ntdll: ...". However, I
think a more logical way to do this would be to first send a patch for
ntdll + tests, and send a test for kernel32 afterwards to prove it's
consistent with ntdll. Sending the test before the series is (IMO)
something you do when it's not entirely obvious that the test would
fail without the change introduced by the patch.