Re: adding DEVICEMAP\HARDWARE registry entries

2008-11-24 Thread A C Hurst
> You don't want to depend on the symlinks, things should work without > requiring the user to create any symlink. > It should depend on what > actual devices are present on the machine, So, directly stat /dev/ttyS*, then check dosdevices for anything overriding these?

Re: adding DEVICEMAP\HARDWARE registry entries

2008-11-24 Thread Alexandre Julliard
A C Hurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would using get_dos_device() be better, since that does fall through to > default behaviour when the > symlink isn't there? No, it doesn't take into account existing devices either. > I chose oldconfig.c since that's where the \DEVICEMAP\Scsi entries get

Re: adding DEVICEMAP\HARDWARE registry entries

2008-11-24 Thread A C Hurst
> > The code in oldconfig.c is called by process.c/__wine_kernel_init(), on > > server startup. > > The entries are volatile, and are dynamically created if you count scanning > wineprefix/dosdevices/ > > and doing a stat() on anything named com[1-9] it finds there every time > > wine starts up

Re: adding DEVICEMAP\HARDWARE registry entries

2008-11-24 Thread Alexandre Julliard
A C Hurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The code in oldconfig.c is called by process.c/__wine_kernel_init(), on > server startup. > The entries are volatile, and are dynamically created if you count scanning > wineprefix/dosdevices/ > and doing a stat() on anything named com[1-9] it finds there

RE: adding DEVICEMAP\HARDWARE registry entries

2008-11-24 Thread A C Hurst
> > Dear winehackers, > > I sent this patch to wine-patches, with a few iterations of editing, > > and wondered if I could have some feedback on it, before I just resend > > it. > I don't think hardcoding this(as this patch seems to do afaics, I barely > know the code) is the right approach here. I

RE: adding DEVICEMAP\HARDWARE registry entries

2008-11-24 Thread Stefan Dösinger
> Dear winehackers, > I sent this patch to wine-patches, with a few iterations of editing, > and wondered if I could have some feedback on it, before I just resend > it. I don't think hardcoding this(as this patch seems to do afaics, I barely know the code) is the right approach here. I think it sh