[ros-diffs] [jimtabor] 31204: Up the handle count to 0x10000, reset adjustment to support change. Add device capabilities to handle table.

[Timo Kreuzer]

why waste the last handle?

>   author: jimtabor
>  Date: Thu Dec 13 23:27:28 2007
>  New Revision: 31204
>  -	for ( i = RESERVE_ENTRIES_COUNT; i < GDI_HANDLE_COUNT; i++ )
>  +	for ( i = RESERVE_ENTRIES_COUNT; i < GDI_HANDLE_COUNT-1; i++ 
>  -   if (HandleIndex >= GDI_HANDLE_COUNT)
>  +   if (HandleIndex >= GDI_HANDLE_COUNT-1)

[James Tabor]

Hi,
XXXX[10000] == 0 -> FFFF. The changes are correct.
Thanks,
James

On Dec 13, 2007 8:20 PM, Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreuzer(a)web.de> wrote:
>   why waste the last handle?
>
> >   author: jimtabor
> >  Date: Thu Dec 13 23:27:28 2007
> >  New Revision: 31204
> >  -     for ( i = RESERVE_ENTRIES_COUNT; i < GDI_HANDLE_COUNT; i++ )
> >  +     for ( i = RESERVE_ENTRIES_COUNT; i < GDI_HANDLE_COUNT-1; i++
> >  -   if (HandleIndex >= GDI_HANDLE_COUNT)
> >  +   if (HandleIndex >= GDI_HANDLE_COUNT-1) 
>

[Alex Ionescu]

Yes, so 0-FFFF are *valid*.

The check disqualifies 0xFFFF. It should either be:

if (HandleIndex >= GDI_HANDLE_COUNT) (What Timo meant)

or

if (HandleIndex > GDI_HANDLE_COUNT - 1) (What you probably mean)

On 13-Dec-07, at 10:07 PM, James Tabor wrote:

>   Hi,
>  XXXX[10000] == 0 -> FFFF. The changes are correct.
>  Thanks,
>  James
>
>  On Dec 13, 2007 8:20 PM, Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreuzer(a)web.de> wrote:
> >   why waste the last handle?
> >
> > >   author: jimtabor
> > >  Date: Thu Dec 13 23:27:28 2007
> > >  New Revision: 31204
> > >  -     for ( i = RESERVE_ENTRIES_COUNT; i < GDI_HANDLE_COUNT; i++ )
> > >  +     for ( i = RESERVE_ENTRIES_COUNT; i < GDI_HANDLE_COUNT-1; i++
> > >  -   if (HandleIndex >= GDI_HANDLE_COUNT)
> > >  +   if (HandleIndex >= GDI_HANDLE_COUNT-1) 
> >  
> _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[James Tabor]

Hi!
Sorry Timo! Thanks Alex for pointing that out! I'm at work,, very
distracting ATM.

On Dec 13, 2007 9:12 PM, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>    Yes, so 0-FFFF are *valid*.
>
>  The check disqualifies 0xFFFF. It should either be:
>
>  if (HandleIndex >= GDI_HANDLE_COUNT) (What Timo meant)
>
>  or
>
>  if (HandleIndex > GDI_HANDLE_COUNT - 1) (What you probably mean)
>  
Yes, that should be right. But If I remember from today, HandleIndex is short.
If I can't get to it tonight,,, please, someone change HandleIndex to ULONG and
that should help.
>  
>
>
>  On 13-Dec-07, at 10:07 PM, James Tabor wrote:
>
>
>  Hi,
>  XXXX[10000] == 0 -> FFFF. The changes are correct.
>  Thanks,
>  James
>
>  On Dec 13, 2007 8:20 PM, Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreuzer(a)web.de> wrote:
>
>
>  why waste the last handle?
>
>
>  author: jimtabor
>  Date: Thu Dec 13 23:27:28 2007
>  New Revision: 31204
>  -     for ( i = RESERVE_ENTRIES_COUNT; i < GDI_HANDLE_COUNT; i++ )
>  +     for ( i = RESERVE_ENTRIES_COUNT; i < GDI_HANDLE_COUNT-1; i++
>  -   if (HandleIndex >= GDI_HANDLE_COUNT)
>  +   if (HandleIndex >= GDI_HANDLE_COUNT-1)
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu 
Thanks,
James