Enable SitePerProcessAccessibilityBrowserTest on more platforms.

content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.cc

Index: content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.cc
diff --git a/content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.cc b/content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.cc
index 054b039fe8e6613d741c9402e046c0aefe493167..9a4df0bc949305dba270f76a819f3a20461dd439 100644
--- a/content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.cc
+++ b/content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.cc
@@ -1574,7 +1574,8 @@ void RenderFrameHostImpl::UpdateCrossProcessIframeAccessibility(
 
     FrameTree* frame_tree = frame_tree_node()->frame_tree();
     FrameTreeNode* child_frame_tree_node = frame_tree->FindByRoutingID(
-        GetProcess()->GetID(), frame_routing_id);
+        frame_routing_id, GetProcess()->GetID());

[dmazzoni, 2015/01/28 19:29:00]

Holy cow, the parameters were reversed!

It's a *total coincidence* that this test passed on Linux before, because
process IDs and routing IDs are both small integers.

It makes me wonder if we should maybe randomize the first routing id, or typedef
them so that it's harder to accidentally get them mixed up.

[nasko, 2015/02/03 17:08:18]

Also makes me think if we should change the signature of FindByRoutingID, as
lots of other methods have the (process, routing id) ordering. Definitely
different CL though.

+
     if (child_frame_tree_node) {
       FrameAccessibility::GetInstance()->AddChildFrame(
           this, node_id, child_frame_tree_node->frame_tree_node_id());