Ros-dev December 2017

ros-dev@reactos.org

19 participants
13 discussions

"Note: LibreOffice 5.4 will be the last codeline to support Windows XP or Vista"
by Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo 06 May '18

06 May '18

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Releases/5.4.0/RC1 FYI

11 19

Project-tools repository converted to Git - Welcome our 18 new repos!
by Colin Finck 08 Jan '18

08 Jan '18

Hi all, I just finished converting our "project-tools" SVN repo to Git and splitting it up into individual repositories in the process. These repos have already been uploaded to GitHub (https://github.com/reactos), so you can have a look and comment easily. Welcome these 18 new repositories: * ahk_tests * buildbot_config * git-tools * irc * Message_Translator * monitoring * packmgr (Archived) * project-tools-archive (Archived) * Qemu_GUI * reactosdbg * Release_Engineering * RosBE * rosev_ircsystem * rosev_jameicaplugin * RosTE * sysreg2 * sysreg3 (Archived) * vmwaregateway I haven't given anyone write access yet. I think this is acceptable for the moment while we check if there are any outstanding issues with the conversion. Please let me know until January 7. If everything is okay by then, I will add write access again and officially move development away from the project-tools SVN repo. Have a good start into 2018! Colin

3 4

Postponing December Status Meeting
by Colin Finck 04 Jan '18

04 Jan '18

Hi all! If we follow our usual schedule, the December Status Meeting would be today. With such a late announcement and many people still on holidays, I suggest postponing it to next Thursday, January 4, 2018. Time will be 19:00 UTC as always. I already asked on #reactos-dev and got some approvals, so consider this the official meeting invitation :) This also gives you one week from now for agenda proposals. Additionally, we have got some new contributors in the recent months. If you think you should join the meeting or know somebody who should join, please let me know in advance. See you all next year! Colin

1 1

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [reactos] 01/01: [SETUP] Remove FSDs which have broken dismount implementation. This avoids issues when these partitions are formatted to FAT for setup.
by 7th Element 18 Dec '17

18 Dec '17

Hi Pierre, Isn’t this change going to remove ability to boot from those FSs? BR, Peter > On 18 Dec 2017, at 0:16, Pierre Schweitzer <pierre(a)reactos.org> wrote: > > https://git.reactos.org/?p=reactos.git;a=commitdiff;h=806cd16328799771b8939… > > commit 806cd16328799771b89397f5c51a3d46884bce0a > Author: Pierre Schweitzer <pierre(a)reactos.org> > AuthorDate: Sun Dec 17 23:13:56 2017 +0100 > > [SETUP] Remove FSDs which have broken dismount implementation. > This avoids issues when these partitions are formatted to FAT for setup. > > For now, this commit doesn't change anything, but once IopParseDevice hack > gets removed, this will make a difference! > > CORE-6305 > --- > boot/bootdata/txtsetup.sif | 2 -- > drivers/filesystems/btrfs/CMakeLists.txt | 2 +- > drivers/filesystems/ntfs/CMakeLists.txt | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/boot/bootdata/txtsetup.sif b/boot/bootdata/txtsetup.sif > index 3ea62974b5..822c19c8c8 100644 > --- a/boot/bootdata/txtsetup.sif > +++ b/boot/bootdata/txtsetup.sif > @@ -52,7 +52,6 @@ usbstor.sys=,,,,,,x,,,,,,4 > kbdhid.sys=,,,,,,,,,,,,4 > kbdclass.sys=,,,,,,x,,,,,,4 > l_intl.nls=,,,,,,,,,,,,2 > -ntfs.sys=,,,,,,,,,,,,4 > pci.sys=,,,,,,,,,,,,4 > scsiport.sys=,,,,,,x,,,,,,4 > storport.sys=,,,,,,x,,,,,,4 > @@ -69,7 +68,6 @@ ntdll.dll=,,,,,,,,,,,,2 > wmilib.sys=,,,,,,,,,,,,4 > ksecdd.sys=,,,,,,,,,,,,4 > mountmgr.sys=,,,,,,x,,,,,,4 > -btrfs.sys=,,,,,,x,,,,,,4 > reiserfs.sys=,,,,,,x,,,,,,4 > ffs.sys=,,,,,,x,,,,,,4 > udfs.sys=,,,,,,x,,,,,,4 > diff --git a/drivers/filesystems/btrfs/CMakeLists.txt b/drivers/filesystems/btrfs/CMakeLists.txt > index 65e61d255a..123c9f0522 100644 > --- a/drivers/filesystems/btrfs/CMakeLists.txt > +++ b/drivers/filesystems/btrfs/CMakeLists.txt > @@ -41,4 +41,4 @@ add_definitions(-D__KERNEL__) > set_module_type(btrfs kernelmodedriver) > target_link_libraries(btrfs rtlver ntoskrnl_vista zlib_solo wdmguid ${PSEH_LIB}) > add_importlibs(btrfs ntoskrnl hal) > -add_cd_file(TARGET btrfs DESTINATION reactos/system32/drivers NO_CAB FOR all) > +add_cd_file(TARGET btrfs DESTINATION reactos/system32/drivers FOR all) > diff --git a/drivers/filesystems/ntfs/CMakeLists.txt b/drivers/filesystems/ntfs/CMakeLists.txt > index 0b1af78947..5a193b449d 100644 > --- a/drivers/filesystems/ntfs/CMakeLists.txt > +++ b/drivers/filesystems/ntfs/CMakeLists.txt > @@ -25,4 +25,4 @@ set_module_type(ntfs kernelmodedriver) > target_link_libraries(ntfs ${PSEH_LIB}) > add_importlibs(ntfs ntoskrnl hal) > add_pch(ntfs ntfs.h SOURCE) > -add_cd_file(TARGET ntfs DESTINATION reactos/system32/drivers NO_CAB FOR all) > +add_cd_file(TARGET ntfs DESTINATION reactos/system32/drivers FOR all) > >

3 8

Small suggestion for the abandoned SVN mirror on GitHub
by Dmitry D. Chernov 17 Dec '17

17 Dec '17

Good day everyone. I'm talking about this repo: https://github.com/reactos/reactos-deprecated-gitsvn-dont-use To prevent pull-requesting to it I suggest to use new GitHub feature "archive this repository". To enable it, just open the "Settings" page and go to the bottom. "Archived" repos are marked as read-only and could not be pull-requested. It's also would be nice to disable unused "Projects" tab in this repo for the great justice of perfectionism. ___ Dmitry D. Chernov

4 5

ReactOS 0.4.7 to be released tomorrow, 6th December 2017 - Press Kit is online!
by Colin Finck 17 Dec '17

17 Dec '17

Hi all! With all release preparations done, we can finally give a release date for ReactOS 0.4.7: Tomorrow, Wednesday, 6th December 2017. During that day (European time), the release will be published. A Press Kit for ReactOS 0.4.7 is already available: https://sourceforge.net/projects/reactos/files/ReactOS/0.4.7/ReactOS-0.4.7-… Feel free to send it to interested parties to let them know about the upcoming release in advance. Best regards, Colin Finck

4 4

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [reactos] 01/01: [NTOS:MM] Fix NtFreeVirtualMemory() FreeType parameter checks. CORE-13126
by Alex Ionescu 16 Dec '17

16 Dec '17

I'm unsure how reducing the two explicit checks into a single one is a better decision. This is much less scalable and much less clear of what the caller did wrong. I'd like to see the old checks (correctly) restored. Best regards, Alex Ionescu On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Serge Gautherie < reactos-git_serge_171003(a)gautherie.fr> wrote: > https://git.reactos.org/?p=reactos.git;a=commitdiff;h= > 614ace03fa4ec1957f32727ab0975a98c858894d > > commit 614ace03fa4ec1957f32727ab0975a98c858894d > Author: Serge Gautherie <reactos-git_serge_171003(a)gautherie.fr> > AuthorDate: Sat Dec 9 12:16:44 2017 +0100 > > [NTOS:MM] Fix NtFreeVirtualMemory() FreeType parameter checks. > CORE-13126 > --- > ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/virtual.c | 20 +++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/virtual.c b/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/virtual.c > index 0e5fe77a23..fc4ea2e6d2 100644 > --- a/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/virtual.c > +++ b/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/virtual.c > @@ -5108,21 +5108,11 @@ NtFreeVirtualMemory(IN HANDLE ProcessHandle, > PAGED_CODE(); > > // > - // Only two flags are supported > + // Only two flags are supported, exclusively. > // > - if (!(FreeType & (MEM_RELEASE | MEM_DECOMMIT))) > + if (FreeType != MEM_RELEASE && FreeType != MEM_DECOMMIT) > { > - DPRINT1("Invalid FreeType\n"); > - return STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER_4; > - } > - > - // > - // Check if no flag was used, or if both flags were used > - // > - if (!((FreeType & (MEM_DECOMMIT | MEM_RELEASE))) || > - ((FreeType & (MEM_DECOMMIT | MEM_RELEASE)) == (MEM_DECOMMIT | > MEM_RELEASE))) > - { > - DPRINT1("Invalid FreeType combination\n"); > + DPRINT1("Invalid FreeType (0x%08lx)\n", FreeType); > return STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER_4; > } > > @@ -5200,8 +5190,8 @@ NtFreeVirtualMemory(IN HANDLE ProcessHandle, > } > } > > - DPRINT("NtFreeVirtualMemory: Process 0x%p, Adress 0x%p, size 0x%x, > FreeType %x.\n", > - Process, PBaseAddress, PRegionSize, FreeType); > + DPRINT("NtFreeVirtualMemory: Process 0x%p, Address 0x%p, Size 0x%Ix, > FreeType 0x%08lx\n", > + Process, PBaseAddress, PRegionSize, FreeType); > > // > // Lock the address space > >

1 0

[ros-diffs] [reactos] 01/01: [SDK] pnp.idl: Add a reminder comment about removed Vista/+ functions. CORE-12580
by James Tabor 15 Dec '17

15 Dec '17

Hi, Let's try not removing (ZAPPING) API due to future use okay? Just #if it out with the correct __NTZYX__ thing. So if I wish to have VISTA or Server 201X, I can select it while running the configuration script. Do it this way so someone could select Server 2003 (Default now) later on. Same or better TEAM! Think about what will be needed later on. ZAPPING OUT! James

1 0

PineappleFund
by Alexander Shaposhnikov 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

Hi all! Recenly a new Reddit post came up on #reactos IRC: https://redd.it/7jj0oa. Interesting stuff. A person is giving away ~5000 BTC for charitable causes. We can apply via the website but it must be done by someone from ReactOS e.V. -- Cheers, Alexander Shaposhnikov

9 11

Merging our x86 HALs
by Colin Finck 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

Hi all, I have been looking into our HALs recently on the promise that it is a huge mess that needs fixing. Well, as a start I could imagine merging our 6 possible x86 HALs (Legacy, ACPI, APIC, ACPI+APIC, SMP, SMP+ACPI) into a single one, even if Windows ships individual ones. I see many advantages of that: * Less duplications and reduced mess: Right now, the APIC HAL hangs at HalpCalibrateStallExecution during boot, a function that has been fixed and universally implemented in all non-APIC HALs. The APIC HAL also duplicates HalpInitializePICs as HalpInitializeLegacyPIC. If you look at the SMP code, it didn't even receive the last build system changes and has conflicting implementations for APIC functions. A single x86 HAL would ensure that all possible configurations are maintained. * Future-proof: How is one going to implement newer features like x2APIC with a structure like that? Would it get another HAL, be integrated into the APIC HAL, or what? We wouldn't have such problems with a single x86 HAL. * Less setup work and testing: Currently, 1st stage setup detects the computer type and installs the appropriate HAL. As such, every additional HAL needs to be added to 1st stage setup code. The user is also able to select a custom HAL during setup, even if it wouldn't work on the machine. We should give neither the user nor the setup the ability to decide. The HAL itself knows best at boot-up what features to enable and what not. * Convenience: The same ReactOS installation could be used on several different x86 computers. So is this the way to go or do I miss something important? Best regards, Colin

4 8

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Ros-dev December 2017