[Bug 12401] Support junction points, i.e. DeviceIoCtl(FSCTL_SET_REPARSE_POINT/FSCTL_GET_REPARSE_POINT)

[wine-bugs at winehq.org]

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12401

--- Comment #17 from André H. <nerv at dawncrow.de> 2012-06-18 15:19:01 CDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > ...
> >  * merge Patch 1 & 2
> 
> You sure Patch 1 and 2 should be together?  It seems weird to me to put support
> for one of the functions along with the stubs for the others, should I maybe
> just drop patch 1 and do what I need to do in 2, 3, and 4 instead?

yes, that's better i think

> 
> >...
> >  * IO_REPARSE_TAG_MOUNT_POINT? why not e.g. IO_REPARSE_TAG_SYMLINK?
> 
> It is my understanding that IO_REPARSE_TAG_MOUNT_POINT is for directories and
> IO_REPARSE_TAG_SYMLINK is for files.  The application that I'm testing with
> only supports IO_REPARSE_TAG_MOUNT_POINT.

therefor the tests

> >  * Patch 6 looks suspicious, but I’m not familiar with the code.
> 
> Some applications require the FILE_ATTRIBUTE_REPARSE_POINT flag to be set. 
> Since stat() does not report symlinks (it reports the attributes of the "real"
> file) it is therefore necessary to call lstat() and report that the S_IFLNK
> flag is set.  Would you prefer that it only OR the S_IFLNK flag?

if the rest of lst.st_mode can differ, then yes, otherwise it should be fine.

> > Hope that helps, and thanks for taking that on
> 
> Yes, thanks so much for your feedback - I'll see what I can do!
np

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the
above URL to reply.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.