[PATCH v2 2/6] ntoskrnl.exe/tests: Add broken results for w7u_2qxl.

[Zebediah Figura (she/her)]

On 6/3/21 10:53 AM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
> On 6/3/21 5:51 PM, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
>> On 6/3/21 10:43 AM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
>>> On 6/3/21 5:41 PM, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
>>>> On 6/3/21 7:55 AM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rémi Bernon <rbernon at codeweavers.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/ntoskrnl.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>     1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/ntoskrnl.c
>>>>> b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/ntoskrnl.c
>>>>> index 5e2520a3e12..769f37439a6 100644
>>>>> --- a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/ntoskrnl.c
>>>>> +++ b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/ntoskrnl.c
>>>>> @@ -1231,7 +1231,7 @@ static void test_pnp_devices(void)
>>>>>         ok(ret, "got error %u\n", GetLastError());
>>>>>         pump_messages();
>>>>> -    ok(got_bus_arrival == 1, "got %u bus arrival messages\n",
>>>>> got_bus_arrival);
>>>>> +    ok(got_bus_arrival == 1 || broken(!got_bus_arrival), "got %u bus
>>>>> arrival messages\n", got_bus_arrival);
>>>>>         ok(!got_bus_removal, "got %u bus removal messages\n",
>>>>> got_bus_removal);
>>>>>         set = SetupDiGetClassDevsA(&bus_class, NULL, NULL,
>>>>> DIGCF_DEVICEINTERFACE | DIGCF_PRESENT);
>>>>> @@ -1247,7 +1247,7 @@ static void test_pnp_devices(void)
>>>>>         ok(ret, "got error %u\n", GetLastError());
>>>>>         pump_messages();
>>>>> -    ok(got_bus_arrival == 1, "got %u bus arrival messages\n",
>>>>> got_bus_arrival);
>>>>> +    ok(got_bus_arrival == 1 || broken(!got_bus_arrival), "got %u bus
>>>>> arrival messages\n", got_bus_arrival);
>>>>>         ok(got_bus_removal == 1, "got %u bus removal messages\n",
>>>>> got_bus_removal);
>>>>>         set = SetupDiGetClassDevsA(&bus_class, NULL, NULL,
>>>>> DIGCF_DEVICEINTERFACE);
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This seems less than ideal; does that machine really never send arrival
>>>> messages?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It looks like so, at least it happens very often afaics, but on w7u_qxl
>>> only.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, I'm not even seeing this failure anywhere on test.winehq.org;
>> can you provide a link?
>>
> 
> It happened with the first version of the series, and almost every time
> I submit the patch manually on this machine:
> 
> https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=91705&f202=exe32.report#k202
> 

Sounds like there's a timing problem then; could we try increasing the 
timeout in pump_messages() instead?