Re: Extra reference?
- From: "Don Burn" <burn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:33:09 -0400
<BubbaGump> wrote in message
news:f0lef2ti0an9gtnhia9rb9rer83cptcntk@xxxxxxxxxx
I'm also a bit annoyed at the attitude towards invention. In a couple
locations it encourages simply copying and pasting existing code
because it's supposedly too difficult to learn to write such code
oneself. Why am I learning how to write a driver if there's no reason
to learn it? It's like an instructor saying, "This isn't important,
but I'll waste time telling you about it anyway. Just don't pay too
much attention because you won't understand." I realize there's an
advantage to not reinventing the wheel, but if it's so difficult to
write a driver from scratch then why doesn't the driver model hide
more of these details? Will the same apply to KMDF?
Invention is fine if you are solving a new problem. The problem here is
that a lot of driver writing with WDM is boilerplate code, and getting it
right is not always easy (if you search the archives of this group and the
OSR groups you will see an amazing amount of thrashing on handling cancel
before the Cancel Safe queue routines).
Most driver writers, had one or more samples they used as base, and yes cut
and pasted large portions of these to the next driver. In one sense this
was a driver framework based on source code.
This is the purpose of KMDF, a lot of the handling of PnP / Power / Cancel
became very complex because it grew over time, and because not all the
implications were realized at the beginning. KMDF is a model to hide much
of this.
--
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
http://www.windrvr.com
Remove StopSpam from the email to reply
.
- Prev by Date: A bug in NDISPROT or an issue in the NDIS core?
- Next by Date: Re: Who is responsible for zero-length packet termination of bulk write?
- Previous by thread: Re: Extra reference?
- Next by thread: Re: Extra reference?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
