Sept. 18, 2022
11:27 a.m.
On 9/18/22 11:20, Daniel Lehman (@dlehman25) wrote: > On Sun Sep 18 12:40:19 2022 +0000, Jinoh Kang wrote: >>> I asked before, but I don't think I got an answer: what's >> unimplemented about the "io" parameter? It's not obvious just from >> reading the function. >> As shown in the tests, the implementation's behaviour regarding `io` is >> not precise. >> On Windows 10, supplying an invalid address results in >> `STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION`; however, this implementation (and Windows < >> 10) simply fails with `STATUS_NOT_FOUND`. >> This is indicative of the Windows implementation actually doing >> *something* with the block, so it's worth a FIXME until the behaviour >> matches Windows. >> Also, the FIXME won't cause much noise as it's not a common case (e.g. >> `CancelSynchronousIo` does not use it). > it doesn't fit neatly into either implemented or unimplemented. it appears to be used in some way, but not an important one > > after your question, i had added some wine tests that showed it affects the return value on 32-bit vs 64-bit windows but not the overall intended behavior > > how about a different phrase, like 'Unused parameter'? > But it's not unused. We're interpreting it as a filter. If that's not correct, maybe we should remove that part of the implementation?