Hi Ben, did you see http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15679 http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-October/079842.html ?
IMHO the way the Samba sources merged the fd and filename version of the calls makes for less duplication of code. (I tried to do it the other way first, and it seemed ugly.) - Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dan Kegel wrote:
Hi Ben, did you see http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15679 http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-October/079842.html ?
IMHO the way the Samba sources merged the fd and filename version of the calls makes for less duplication of code. (I tried to do it the other way first, and it seemed ugly.)
- Dan
I saw that, and that's at least part of why I created that extended attribute portability patch for libport. Serves as one location to fix any bugs in it, or extend the support to other platforms.
I noticed that the portability functions in libport were each in their own separate C file, and that's why I did it like that.
I can see what you're saying about duplication of code, and it would make sense to merge the xattr portability functions into a single C file (e.g. xattr.c).
If there's a better place for the xattr portability code, please say so.
I know it's unlikely to be merged until a few units actually start using extended attributes.
Thinking about the NT ACL storage issue (brought up by bug #20643), rather than using xattrs for that, POSIX ACLs would be a better target.
-
Ben Peddell -
Dan Kegel