On 11/25/2011 08:35 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
That's great! When it's done it will be one less out of tree patch to
maintain, always a win.
Ciao,
C
You're free to keep your patches on your own/private tree but if you're
discussing here, I guess you wanted your stuff being committed in the
ma
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Charles Davis wrote:
>
> On Nov 25, 2011, at 8:17 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Claudio Fontana
>> wrote:
>>> I have resent the patch as a "try 2" (there was a try 1.5 to fix test
>>> issues under windows older than XP SP3).
>>>
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Claudio Fontana
wrote:
> I have resent the patch as a "try 2" (there was a try 1.5 to fix test
> issues under windows older than XP SP3).
>
> The patch contains changes based on your feedback.
Which is completely broken, since the U() macro you suggested to use
is
I have resent the patch as a "try 2" (there was a try 1.5 to fix test
issues under windows older than XP SP3).
The patch contains changes based on your feedback.
Some things I stand by, and won't change.
If you feel differently, you should argue for their validity a little
bit more than "don't us
On Nov 25, 2011, at 8:17 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Claudio Fontana
> wrote:
>> I have resent the patch as a "try 2" (there was a try 1.5 to fix test
>> issues under windows older than XP SP3).
>>
>> The patch contains changes based on your feedback.
>
> Whic
Hello,
I saw a bug 27189 in the bug database where Austin English was waiting
for a GLPI implementation.
I had one already (among other patches I keep against the wine tree),
so I attached it, and while I was at it, I thought to submit it to
wine-patches as well.
I am not sure I have the time to
On Nov 24, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Charles Davis wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2011, at 4:21 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>
>> +ret = GetLogicalProcessorInformation(buffer, &buflen);
>> +ok(ret, "Normal glpi call (%d)\n", GetLastError());
> Don't call GetLastError() inside an ok(). (Actually, that's moot,
Hi,
On Nov 24, 2011, at 4:21 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> First implementation of GetLogicalProcessorInformation.
> Limitations: all logical processors are added to the same NUMA set,
> and all cores are added to the same package.
> Only the linux-specific helper function is implemented, so for n
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=15612
Your paranoid android
