Re: Alexandre Julliard : server: Added access rights mapping to synchronization objects.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
@@ -132,6 +133,15 @@ static int event_satisfied( struct objec return 0; /* Not abandoned */ }
+static unsigned int event_map_access( struct object *obj, unsigned int access ) +{ + if (access & GENERIC_READ) access |= STANDARD_RIGHTS_READ | SYNCHRONIZE | EVENT_QUERY_STATE; + if (access & GENERIC_WRITE) access |= STANDARD_RIGHTS_WRITE; + if (access & GENERIC_EXECUTE) access |= STANDARD_RIGHTS_EXECUTE; + if (access & GENERIC_ALL) access |= STANDARD_RIGHTS_ALL | EVENT_ALL_ACCESS; + return access & ~(GENERIC_READ | GENERIC_WRITE | GENERIC_EXECUTE | GENERIC_ALL); +} + static int event_signal( struct object *obj, unsigned int access ) { struct event *event = (struct event *)obj;
Why did you decide to rely on another function to map the access rights? It seems that none of the objects' mappings depend on any state in the object, so couldn't you have just put the access rights that GENERIC_READ, GENERIC_WRITE, GENERIC_EXECUTE and GENERIC_ALL map to somewhere associated with the object and have just one mapping function. -- Rob Shearman
Robert Shearman <rob(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
Why did you decide to rely on another function to map the access rights? It seems that none of the objects' mappings depend on any state in the object, so couldn't you have just put the access rights that GENERIC_READ, GENERIC_WRITE, GENERIC_EXECUTE and GENERIC_ALL map to somewhere associated with the object and have just one mapping function.
I think it's cleaner to use functions in the ops structure rather than starting to mix various data pointers in there too. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Robert Shearman <rob(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
Why did you decide to rely on another function to map the access rights? It seems that none of the objects' mappings depend on any state in the object, so couldn't you have just put the access rights that GENERIC_READ, GENERIC_WRITE, GENERIC_EXECUTE and GENERIC_ALL map to somewhere associated with the object and have just one mapping function.
I think it's cleaner to use functions in the ops structure rather than starting to mix various data pointers in there too.
How about adding a new structure that contains the ops structure and the data then to not mix them then? -- Rob Shearman
Robert Shearman <rob(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
How about adding a new structure that contains the ops structure and the data then to not mix them then?
I don't see any reason to make the data structure more complex. The amount of code is really pretty much the same, putting it in a table won't make much difference. Also a function is a lot more flexible, even if the results don't depend on the specific object we may at some point want to make them depend on something else, and using a constant table would needlessly limit our options. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
participants (2)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Robert Shearman