No, I'm not assuming this. There is a wine test that proves this. In
fact it regressed, so it was already correct before. I only fixed it
back to what it was. So all is good :)
Am 11.10.2014 18:43, schrieb Alex Ionescu:
  Would be great to have JIRA issues associated to such
fixes as well as
 a test proving the change is correct. For example, are you merely
 assuming that you should return "STATUS_NO_MEMORY", or do you know for
 a fact that STATUS_CONFLICTING_ADDRESSES is the wrong code here?
 Best regards,
 Alex Ionescu
 On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:38 AM, <tkreuzer(a)svn.reactos.org
 <mailto:tkreuzer@svn.reactos.org>> wrote:
     Author: tkreuzer
     Date: Wed Oct  8 07:38:56 2014
     New Revision: 64595
     URL: 
http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=64595&view=rev
     Log:
     [NTOSKRNL]
     Fix a status code
     Modified:
         trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/vadnode.c
     Modified: trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/vadnode.c
     URL:
http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/vadnode.c…
     ==============================================================================
     --- trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/vadnode.c    [iso-8859-1]
     (original)
     +++ trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/vadnode.c    [iso-8859-1] Wed
     Oct  8 07:38:56 2014
     @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@
              {
                  DPRINT1("Not enough free space to insert this VAD
     node!\n");
      KeReleaseGuardedMutex(&CurrentProcess->AddressCreationLock);
     -            return STATUS_CONFLICTING_ADDRESSES;
     +            return STATUS_NO_MEMORY;
              }
              ASSERT(StartingAddress != 0);
 _______________________________________________
 Ros-dev mailing list
 Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
 
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev