Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com
dlls/kernel32/tests/pipe.c | 74 ++----- dlls/ntdll/file.c | 7 +- dlls/ntdll/tests/file.c | 2 +- server/async.c | 15 ++ server/file.h | 2 + server/named_pipe.c | 499 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 6 files changed, 510 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-)
This is causing various random failures during make test. I don't have a good reproducible case, but it seems to randomly break communication with services. For instance I see mountmgr-related errors, or hangs in the msi tests.
On 08.12.2016 16:47, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com
dlls/kernel32/tests/pipe.c | 74 ++----- dlls/ntdll/file.c | 7 +- dlls/ntdll/tests/file.c | 2 +- server/async.c | 15 ++ server/file.h | 2 + server/named_pipe.c | 499 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 6 files changed, 510 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-)
This is causing various random failures during make test. I don't have a good reproducible case, but it seems to randomly break communication with services. For instance I see mountmgr-related errors, or hangs in the msi tests.
I could reproduce it by running services.exe tests in a loop. I found that it's fixed by patches I have in my branch that are meant to improve immediate returns from read/write. On closer look, they not only improve perf, but also fix how we handle errors on ntdll side. Sorry I didn't catch it earlier, I would plan patch series differently. They are only drafts I meant to send as follow ups, so I need to finish them, test a bit more and put earlier in the patch series. I will work on that, but how does it fit release plans?
Thanks, Jacek
Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com writes:
On 08.12.2016 16:47, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com
dlls/kernel32/tests/pipe.c | 74 ++----- dlls/ntdll/file.c | 7 +- dlls/ntdll/tests/file.c | 2 +- server/async.c | 15 ++ server/file.h | 2 + server/named_pipe.c | 499 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 6 files changed, 510 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-)
This is causing various random failures during make test. I don't have a good reproducible case, but it seems to randomly break communication with services. For instance I see mountmgr-related errors, or hangs in the msi tests.
I could reproduce it by running services.exe tests in a loop. I found that it's fixed by patches I have in my branch that are meant to improve immediate returns from read/write. On closer look, they not only improve perf, but also fix how we handle errors on ntdll side. Sorry I didn't catch it earlier, I would plan patch series differently. They are only drafts I meant to send as follow ups, so I need to finish them, test a bit more and put earlier in the patch series. I will work on that, but how does it fit release plans?
With rc1 being out today, I'm afraid it's not going to make it into 2.0, it's too big and risky to apply during code freeze. Sorry about that...
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
With rc1 being out today, I'm afraid it's not going to make it into 2.0, it's too big and risky to apply during code freeze. Sorry about that...
Is the road to 2.0 going to be as restrictive as usual? I really would like to improve bcrypt support before 2.0.
Bruno Jesus 00cpxxx@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
With rc1 being out today, I'm afraid it's not going to make it into 2.0, it's too big and risky to apply during code freeze. Sorry about that...
Is the road to 2.0 going to be as restrictive as usual? I really would like to improve bcrypt support before 2.0.
Bug fixes can be accepted, but new features and large patch series will have to wait until after code freeze I'm afraid.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
Bruno Jesus 00cpxxx@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
With rc1 being out today, I'm afraid it's not going to make it into 2.0, it's too big and risky to apply during code freeze. Sorry about that...
Is the road to 2.0 going to be as restrictive as usual? I really would like to improve bcrypt support before 2.0.
Bug fixes can be accepted, but new features and large patch series will have to wait until after code freeze I'm afraid.
Ok, no problem. I'm also wondering if that will affect Józef's work. He got 50 patches commited in the past 14 days with more 18 to go (maybe more that would have to wait). So is the RC date written in stone already?
Bruno Jesus 00cpxxx@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
Bruno Jesus 00cpxxx@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
With rc1 being out today, I'm afraid it's not going to make it into 2.0, it's too big and risky to apply during code freeze. Sorry about that...
Is the road to 2.0 going to be as restrictive as usual? I really would like to improve bcrypt support before 2.0.
Bug fixes can be accepted, but new features and large patch series will have to wait until after code freeze I'm afraid.
Ok, no problem. I'm also wondering if that will affect Józef's work. He got 50 patches commited in the past 14 days with more 18 to go (maybe more that would have to wait). So is the RC date written in stone already?
Today is release day, so yes, that will be rc1. You have a few more hours ;-)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Bruno Jesus -
Jacek Caban