black-box implementation of CryptProtectData/CryptUnprotectData

[Mike McCormack]

Kees Cook wrote:

>>It's probably better to keep it consistent with what the rest of Wine does.
> 
> I'd really like to push back on this.  The traces become unreadable as 
> the various function names change.  I think the debugging as I have it 
> is more useful than how it looks with only "TRACE" calls.  The top-level 
> function spits out a "TRACE" to identify the caller, and then all the 
> helper functions report the data structures.

Well, I'm not the one who decides.   Alexandre doesn't always have the 
time to explain why he likes or dislikes each patch, so I'm only 
guessing what might keep your patch from being applied :)

> I'll be sending "version 2" of my patch in a little while.  It's got 
> your suggestions incorporated, and a small bug fix.

Great!

Mike