Signed-off-by: Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@winehq.org --- dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c index 17e54cd508..8f41d39747 100644 --- a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c +++ b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static void test_sync(void) ok(ret == i - 9, "expected %d, got %d\n", i - 9, ret); }
- run_thread(mutex_thread, (void *)0); + run_thread(mutex_thread, NULL);
ret = wait_single(&test_mutex, 0); ok(ret == 0, "got %#x\n", ret); @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static void test_sync(void) ret = KeReleaseMutex(&test_mutex, 0); ok(ret == 0, "got %#x\n", ret);
- run_thread(mutex_thread, (void *)0); + run_thread(mutex_thread, NULL);
/* test timers */ KeInitializeTimerEx(&timer, NotificationTimer);
On 12/07/2018 02:57 PM, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
Signed-off-by: Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@winehq.org
dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c index 17e54cd508..8f41d39747 100644 --- a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c +++ b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static void test_sync(void) ok(ret == i - 9, "expected %d, got %d\n", i - 9, ret); }
- run_thread(mutex_thread, (void *)0);
run_thread(mutex_thread, NULL);
ret = wait_single(&test_mutex, 0); ok(ret == 0, "got %#x\n", ret);
@@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static void test_sync(void) ret = KeReleaseMutex(&test_mutex, 0); ok(ret == 0, "got %#x\n", ret);
- run_thread(mutex_thread, (void *)0);
run_thread(mutex_thread, NULL);
/* test timers */ KeInitializeTimerEx(&timer, NotificationTimer);
I'd argue this should be left as it is; the test is casting an NTSTATUS value to the (void *) used as the thread parameter.
On 12/7/18 10:03 PM, Zebediah Figura wrote:
On 12/07/2018 02:57 PM, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
Signed-off-by: Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@winehq.org
dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c index 17e54cd508..8f41d39747 100644 --- a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c +++ b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static void test_sync(void) ok(ret == i - 9, "expected %d, got %d\n", i - 9, ret); } - run_thread(mutex_thread, (void *)0); + run_thread(mutex_thread, NULL); ret = wait_single(&test_mutex, 0); ok(ret == 0, "got %#x\n", ret); @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static void test_sync(void) ret = KeReleaseMutex(&test_mutex, 0); ok(ret == 0, "got %#x\n", ret); - run_thread(mutex_thread, (void *)0); + run_thread(mutex_thread, NULL); /* test timers */ KeInitializeTimerEx(&timer, NotificationTimer);
I'd argue this should be left as it is; the test is casting an NTSTATUS value to the (void *) used as the thread parameter.
If it is a NTSTATUS shouldn't you use STATUS_SUCCESS instead of 0 then?
bye michael
On 12/07/2018 03:40 PM, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
On 12/7/18 10:03 PM, Zebediah Figura wrote:
On 12/07/2018 02:57 PM, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
Signed-off-by: Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@winehq.org
dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c index 17e54cd508..8f41d39747 100644 --- a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c +++ b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver.c @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static void test_sync(void) ok(ret == i - 9, "expected %d, got %d\n", i - 9, ret); } - run_thread(mutex_thread, (void *)0); + run_thread(mutex_thread, NULL); ret = wait_single(&test_mutex, 0); ok(ret == 0, "got %#x\n", ret); @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static void test_sync(void) ret = KeReleaseMutex(&test_mutex, 0); ok(ret == 0, "got %#x\n", ret); - run_thread(mutex_thread, (void *)0); + run_thread(mutex_thread, NULL); /* test timers */ KeInitializeTimerEx(&timer, NotificationTimer);
I'd argue this should be left as it is; the test is casting an NTSTATUS value to the (void *) used as the thread parameter.
If it is a NTSTATUS shouldn't you use STATUS_SUCCESS instead of 0 then?
Well, maybe, but given that KeWaitForMultipleObjects returns an index, this isn't clearly better.
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=45563
Your paranoid android.
=== debian9 (64 bit WoW report) ===
ntoskrnl.exe: ntoskrnl.c:232: Test failed: driver3 should fail to start ntoskrnl.c:233: Test failed: got 183
-
Marvin -
Michael Stefaniuc -
Zebediah Figura