Re: ntdll: Implement RtlCopySecurityDescriptor [take 2]

[Alexandre Julliard]

James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> writes:
> +/******************************************************************************
> + *  RtlCopyAcl      [NTDLL.@]
> + */
> +BOOLEAN WINAPI RtlCopyAcl(DWORD nDestinationAclLength, PACL pDestinationAcl, PACL pSourceAcl)

I don't see any RtlCopyAcl in ntdll. Where does this come from?

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

ntdll: Implement RtlCopySecurityDescriptor [take 2]

[James Hawkins]

On 17 Jun 2005 11:56:32 +0200, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
> James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > +/******************************************************************************
> > + *  RtlCopyAcl      [NTDLL.@]
> > + */
> > +BOOLEAN WINAPI RtlCopyAcl(DWORD nDestinationAclLength, PACL pDestinationAcl, PACL pSourceAcl)
>
> I don't see any RtlCopyAcl in ntdll. Where does this come from?

There isn't an RtlCopyAcl in ntdll, but it simplifies the code a bit
and can be useful in other places.  For one I should've taken out the
[NTDLL.@] because we don't export it, but should the function be named
something else?

-- 
James Hawkins

ntdll: Implement RtlCopySecurityDescriptor [take 2]

[Alexandre Julliard]

James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> writes:
> There isn't an RtlCopyAcl in ntdll, but it simplifies the code a bit
> and can be useful in other places.  For one I should've taken out the
> [NTDLL.@] because we don't export it, but should the function be named
> something else?

Yes, it should be named something like copy_acl to make it clear it's
an internal function, and it should definitely not be declared in an
exported header.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org