On 6/3/21 2:31 PM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
On 6/3/21 6:04 PM, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
On 6/3/21 10:53 AM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
On 6/3/21 5:51 PM, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
On 6/3/21 10:43 AM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
On 6/3/21 5:41 PM, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
On 6/3/21 7:55 AM, Rémi Bernon wrote: > Signed-off-by: Rémi Bernon rbernon@codeweavers.com > --- > dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/ntoskrnl.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/ntoskrnl.c > b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/ntoskrnl.c > index 5e2520a3e12..769f37439a6 100644 > --- a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/ntoskrnl.c > +++ b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/ntoskrnl.c > @@ -1231,7 +1231,7 @@ static void test_pnp_devices(void) > ok(ret, "got error %u\n", GetLastError()); > pump_messages(); > - ok(got_bus_arrival == 1, "got %u bus arrival messages\n", > got_bus_arrival); > + ok(got_bus_arrival == 1 || broken(!got_bus_arrival), "got %u bus > arrival messages\n", got_bus_arrival); > ok(!got_bus_removal, "got %u bus removal messages\n", > got_bus_removal); > set = SetupDiGetClassDevsA(&bus_class, NULL, NULL, > DIGCF_DEVICEINTERFACE | DIGCF_PRESENT); > @@ -1247,7 +1247,7 @@ static void test_pnp_devices(void) > ok(ret, "got error %u\n", GetLastError()); > pump_messages(); > - ok(got_bus_arrival == 1, "got %u bus arrival messages\n", > got_bus_arrival); > + ok(got_bus_arrival == 1 || broken(!got_bus_arrival), "got %u bus > arrival messages\n", got_bus_arrival); > ok(got_bus_removal == 1, "got %u bus removal messages\n", > got_bus_removal); > set = SetupDiGetClassDevsA(&bus_class, NULL, NULL, > DIGCF_DEVICEINTERFACE); >
This seems less than ideal; does that machine really never send arrival messages?
It looks like so, at least it happens very often afaics, but on w7u_qxl only.
Actually, I'm not even seeing this failure anywhere on test.winehq.org; can you provide a link?
It happened with the first version of the series, and almost every time I submit the patch manually on this machine:
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=91705&f202=exe32.report#k20...
Sounds like there's a timing problem then; could we try increasing the timeout in pump_messages() instead?
Increasing the timeout to 500ms and adding a while loop instead doesn't seem to help.
I really don't like the idea of breaking the test completely like this. If nothing else I'd like to take some time to figure out what's wrong with that testbot machine.