Re: 1394 Error code 0xC0120090
- From: "Bill McKenzie" <bm01_REMOVE_@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:33:45 -0600
Actually, "if (status == STATUS_INVALID_GENERATION)" is perfectly valid.
The generation count can change asynchronously, so it is generally a good
idea to check for this failure status and update the generation count and
retry if this failure is received.
I noticed this generation status value changing several years ago and
emailed MSFT and asked them to please stop changing status values. I don't
know if they listened to me, or just realized they were screwing the world
here, but they finally stopped changing this value with each new DDK. I
don't have my 1394 code in front of me, but I believe they actually changed
it three times, the original value on 98, new value for Win2K and one more
for XP. Nice!
Bill M.
"Gary G. Little" <gary.g.little@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43ba929c$0$15177$6d36acad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Of course I must mention that "if (status == STATUS_INVALID_GENERATION)"
> is an improper form in the first place. You should be using
> NT_SUCCESS(status) or NT_ERROR(status). Is it beyond your kith and kin to
> mask off the offending bit; status &= 0xFFFF7FFF?
>
> The personal opinion of
> Gary G. Little
>
> "Hemant Mohan" <hmohan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1136279545.977835.241140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Thanks for your response.
>> Here is some funny observation regarding this error code.
>> In the DDK 2600 the w2k/1394.h file defines this
>> STATUS_INVALID_GENERATION as 0xC0128090, while wxp/1394.h defines it as
>> 0xC0120090.
>>
>> While testing on a W2k the bus driver returned the number as 0xC0128090
>> and we modified the logic to solve the race condition issue with this
>> number. Now while testing it on XP the errno returned by lower bus
>> driver is 0xC0120090. So if we want a binary compatible driver then we
>> cannot check on STATUS_INVALID_GENERATION but need to explictly hard
>> code the numbers.
>>
>> Don't know what these folks at M$ are upto. They just can't keep upto
>> any standards.
>>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 1394 Error code 0xC0120090
- From: Bill McKenzie
- Re: 1394 Error code 0xC0120090
- References:
- 1394 Error code 0xC0120090
- From: Hemant Mohan
- Re: 1394 Error code 0xC0120090
- From: heinz
- Re: 1394 Error code 0xC0120090
- From: Hemant Mohan
- Re: 1394 Error code 0xC0120090
- From: Gary G. Little
- 1394 Error code 0xC0120090
- Prev by Date: Re: remap a kernel mode driver.
- Next by Date: DPInst 2.01 return code explained
- Previous by thread: Re: 1394 Error code 0xC0120090
- Next by thread: Re: 1394 Error code 0xC0120090
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|