http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12401
--- Comment #17 from André H. nerv@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