On 2017-06-02 19:52, phater(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> + aDstNextStr = (char*)((DWORD)aDstNextStr + (DWORD)bItmLen);
DWORD cannot always fit a pointer. You want DWORD_PTR for this kind of
math (or simply use char *).
On 2017-06-02 02:44, hbelusca(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> @@ -341,7 +341,7 @@
> }
>
> InitializeObjectAttributes(&ObjectAttributes, &ServicesU, OBJ_CASE_INSENSITIVE, NULL, NULL);
> - Status = NtCreateKey(&hServices, 0, &ObjectAttributes, 0, NULL, 0, NULL);
> + Status = NtCreateKey(&hServices, KEY_ALL_ACCESS, &ObjectAttributes, 0, NULL, 0, NULL);
> if (!NT_SUCCESS(Status))
> {
> DPRINT1("NtCreateKey('%wZ') failed with status 0x%08lx\n", &ServicesU, Status);
>
>
It doesn't really need full access, does it? Could have gone for
something closer to the original, like READ_CONTROL.
I understand not making the change to how 1st stage deals with the
registry in trunk.
Why not the tool change though? Can't you have the new mkhive do the
exact same thing it does now, and do it in trunk? The smaller your
branch merge commit the easier it will be to avoid/pinpoint/fix
regressions.
On 2017-06-02 02:34, hbelusca(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> Author: hbelusca
> Date: Fri Jun 2 00:34:10 2017
> New Revision: 74741
>
> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=74741&view=rev
> Log:
> [MKHIVE][CMAKE]: Make mkhive a bit more flexible, so that it can generate only specific hives on-demand (and not all of them always at once). I need this for building a single bootcd registry hive.
> I commit these changes in my branch because it's too much über-advanced code for our trunk, yet... (and it will uncover deep "setup" hacks in NTOS' iomgr & pnpmgr as soon as I'll enable 1-st stage setup to have a proper registry present as done on windows).
> CORE-13347 #comment Committed in r74741 but just in the setup_improvements branch for the moment.
On 2017-06-01 20:27, hbelusca(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> /* EISA */
> case EisaAdapter:
> -
> + {
> /* Fixup information */
> Interface = Eisa;
> Bus = CmpTypeCount[EisaAdapter]++;
> break;
> + }
This is a completely unnecessary change to somebody else's code that has
no basis in our documented coding style. Uh... don't do that?
On 2017-06-02 02:00, hbelusca(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> [MKHIVE]: Formatting changes only + sync back the names of the reg-inf functions with the ones where they are coming from (aka. Wine's setupapi/install.c).
Those two goals clearly conflict with either other. Either keep Wine's
function names AND formatting to keep things comparable/sync-able, or
make the code follow our style.
On 2017-06-01 20:37, hbelusca(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> + if (!NT_SUCCESS(Status))
> + {
> + /* We failed, close all the opened handles and return */
> + // NtClose(KeyHandle);
Please don't add commented-out code.
What is that supposed to even mean? "I was too lazy to test this"? "All
the other code depends on this leak"? "I think it would look prettier
here"?
Hello,
I propose to reschedule our monthly meeting to Thursday next week (1st
of June), as tomorrow is a holiday in some countries, and also I have
tight meetings schedule this week.
Regards,
Aleksey Bragin
Hey guys,
An idea has just come to my mind,
mplayer is an application that already exists for Linux:
https://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/news.html
maybe we should change ReactOS´ player name so that we avoid possible
future demands?
what do u think?