[cifs-protocol] [REG:110040646791367] : RE: Numerical value of FLAG_ATTR_REQ_PARTIAL_SET_MEMBER

Nadezhda Ivanova nadezhda.ivanova at postpath.com
Wed Apr 7 04:58:56 MDT 2010

I think you are right, but it is still a bit confusing. Anyway, I finally got it :).

----- Original Message -----
> From: Luke Howard <lukeh at padl.com>
> To: Nadezhda Ivanova <nadezhda.ivanova at postpath.com>
> Cc: hongweis at microsoft.com <hongweis at microsoft.com>, dochelp at winse.microsoft.com <dochelp at winse.microsoft.com>, cifs-protocol at samba.org <cifs-protocol at samba.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 1:19:03 PM (GMT+02:00) Helsinki, Kyiv, Riga, Sofia, Tallinn, Vilnius
> Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] [REG:110040646791367] : RE: Numerical value of FLAG_ATTR_REQ_PARTIAL_SET_MEMBER

> > On 07/04/2010, at 11:02 AM, Nadezhda Ivanova wrote:
> > Hi Hongwei,
> > Thanks a lot! I suppose I got confused because 2.2.10 states:
> 0x00000002)
> > I was not sure if both flags have the same value, or the value is 
> My understanding is that the flag meaning depends on the context (ie. 
> the object class). So the same values may have completely different 
> meanings for different classes.
> -- Luke

More information about the cifs-protocol mailing list