Re: Starting a driver within a driver...
- From: "Doron Holan [MS]" <doronh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 04:03:34 GMT
A proposed feature of longhorn will be that the OS supports multiple
asynchronous starts. I am pretty sure all other OS's synchronously start
the devices.
d
--
Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. this alias is for
newsgroup purposes only.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Ray Trent" <ratrent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:emu1HpFPFHA.2432@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sigh. You're right, as usual...
Anyway, am I correct in guessing that it would work on XP and 2k3? They
seem to do a better job of asynchronously starting devices.
Doron Holan [MS] wrote:
no, you can't pend the start irp. on a lot of OS variants, the pnp enum
lock is held and the pnp manager will synchronously wait for the start to
complete before starting the next device.
d
--
../ray\..
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Starting a driver within a driver...
- From: Maxim S. Shatskih
- Re: Starting a driver within a driver...
- References:
- Starting a driver within a driver...
- From: Cosmo
- Re: Starting a driver within a driver...
- From: Eliyas Yakub [MSFT]
- Re: Starting a driver within a driver...
- From: Ray Trent
- Re: Starting a driver within a driver...
- From: Doron Holan [MS]
- Re: Starting a driver within a driver...
- From: Ray Trent
- Starting a driver within a driver...
- Prev by Date: RE: sync/async NdisTransferData()
- Next by Date: Re: Assigning a drive letter to com port
- Previous by thread: Re: Starting a driver within a driver...
- Next by thread: Re: Starting a driver within a driver...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading