Re: WDF storage driver is a dead-end street
- From: krish <pradeep_bisht@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:12:15 -0800 (PST)
Hi Don, I did not get it. Where would you add the the disk filter -
above the class driver ? And where to add the third driver? And why
you call it the third, shouldn't it be the second driver - One filter
driver and One function (inspired form ramdisk example)? Do you mean
ataport/minport will go away and we will have new_filter_driver/
disk_driver/new_function_driver as the stack? Please confirm. Also
please note that I want OS to think there is just one device and not
two. Only my driver knows that underlying there are two physically
distinct devices of 2 types. And thank you very much for all your
help. I really appreciate that.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: WDF storage driver is a dead-end street
- From: Don Burn
- Re: WDF storage driver is a dead-end street
- From: Maxim S. Shatskih
- Re: WDF storage driver is a dead-end street
- References:
- WDF storage (IDE) stack;
- From: krish
- Re: WDF storage (IDE) stack;
- From: Don Burn
- Re: WDF storage driver is a dead-end street
- From: krish
- Re: WDF storage driver is a dead-end street
- From: krish
- Re: WDF storage driver is a dead-end street
- From: dwightrileyjr
- Re: WDF storage driver is a dead-end street
- From: Don Burn
- WDF storage (IDE) stack;
- Prev by Date: Re: USB Interrupt endpoint processing starved
- Next by Date: Re: WDF storage driver is a dead-end street
- Previous by thread: Re: WDF storage driver is a dead-end street
- Next by thread: Re: WDF storage driver is a dead-end street
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|