Hi,
On 11/28/05, Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Change tests accordingly.
This reminded me, I meant to send you a note when this test was first
added. The test needs some loving for Windows Server 2003.
om.c:190: Test failed: Failed create returned valid handle! (80905558)
om.c:20
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 12:37:05 PM, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> Ok, then this is what we have:
> 1. Pass arguments explicitly to each function (rootdir, name,
>attributes).
> 2. Don't use object_attr structure.
>
> Only left is to decide what rootdir should be (struct object*,
> struct dir
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 11:59:24 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
> Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
>>Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 11:05:05 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
>>Using object_attr:
>>static struct object *create_mapping( const struct object_attr
>>*attr, file_pos_t size, int protect,
>>
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 11:05:05 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
+/* open a new handle to an existing object */
+obj_handle_t open_object_dir( const struct object_attr *attr, const str
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 11:30:18 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm not sure if that's possible. You can't insert mutex or even into
>> named pipe's name space. Same, you can't insert named pipe or desktop
>> into a directory object.
>>
>> Bec
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
+#define DIRECTORY_QUERY (0x0001)
+#define DIRECTORY_TRAVERSE (0x0002)
+#define DIRECTORY_CREATE_OBJECT (0x0004)
+#define DIRECTORY_CREATE_SUBDIRECTORY (0x0008)
+#define DIRECTORY_ALL_ACCESS (STANDARD_RIGHTS_REQUIRED | 0xF)
Should
Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure if that's possible. You can't insert mutex or even into
> named pipe's name space. Same, you can't insert named pipe or desktop
> into a directory object.
>
> Because we don't have object type objects, I can't think of any other way
> to
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 11:05:05 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>>Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>+/* open a new handle to an existing object */
>>+obj_handle_t open_object_dir( const struct object_attr *attr, const struct
>>object_ops *ops,
>>+
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Basically event, mutex, section, timer, etc can go there with minor
changes to code. Named pipes, mail slots and winstations with desktops
are a bit different. They have their own name space, that I'm planning on
using c
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 10:34:05 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Basically event, mutex, section, timer, etc can go there with minor
>> changes to code. Named pipes, mail slots and winstations with desktops
>> are a bit different. They have the
Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Basically event, mutex, section, timer, etc can go there with minor
> changes to code. Named pipes, mail slots and winstations with desktops
> are a bit different. They have their own name space, that I'm planning on
> using current namespace mechanis
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 9:59:42 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mm I don't want to do that because find_object_dir could and will be used
>> on any object. I'm planning on renaming our current find_object into
>> something like find_object_ns o
Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just want to make clear for myself. You want me to add all this code to
> each object's create/open instead of putting it in the one place?
Yes. If there's common code you can of course move it to a shared
function. But please not an ugly macro that
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 9:14:28 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> void *create_named_object_dir( const struct object *rootdir,
>>const struct unicode_str *name,
>>unsigned int attr,
Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> void *create_named_object_dir( const struct object *rootdir,
>const struct unicode_str *name,
>unsigned int attr,
>const struct object_ops *ops );
>
> DECL
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 4:53:23 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> +/* get parts of an OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES into object_attr */
>> +#define GET_OBJECT_ATTR(a,r,n) \
>> +get_req_unicode_str( n ); \
>> +(a)->rootdir= (r)->rootdir; \
>> +
Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +/* get parts of an OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES into object_attr */
> +#define GET_OBJECT_ATTR(a,r,n) \
> +get_req_unicode_str( n ); \
> +(a)->rootdir= (r)->rootdir; \
> +(a)->attributes = (r)->attributes; \
> +(a)->name = (n);
> +
Th
* On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> * Tuesday, November 22, 2005, 1:51:05 PM, Robert Shearman wrote:
> >
> >>+#define DIRECTORY_QUERY (0x0001)
> >>+#define DIRECTORY_TRAVERSE (0x0002)
> >>+#define DIRECTORY_CREATE_OBJECT (0x0004)
> >>+#define DIREC
Tuesday, November 22, 2005, 3:14:15 PM, Robert Shearman wrote:
+struct object *permanent_obj[25];
+int permanent_obj_cnt = 0;
>>>This looks a bit ugly to me. Why not just keep track of the individual
>>>objects that need to be kept around in named variables?
>>Because there will be more. Po
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
+struct object *obj, *parent;
+struct unicode_str name_l = *attr->name;
What does name_l stand for?
L for local. I don't like to give local variables to long of the names.
I'd drop the "_l" suffix. It confused me when reading your patch into
Tuesday, November 22, 2005, 1:51:05 PM, Robert Shearman wrote:
>> ChangeLog:
>> Implement directory object in wineserver.
> I like the design, but I have a few comments on the patch.
Thank you. That's like 6st revision of it.
>>+#define DIRECTORY_QUERY
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
ChangeLog:
Implement directory object in wineserver.
I like the design, but I have a few comments on the patch.
server/Makefile.in |1 server/directory.c | 384
+++
server/main.c |1 server/object.c
22 matches
Mail list logo
