Re: Mirror Driver Architecture
- From: Tim Roberts <timr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:59:23 -0800
"Ronny S" <RonnyS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Before you embark on a multimonth development effort, have you checked out
the various VNCs, which do exactly what you are asking, and come with
source code?
Unfortunately the VNC family of products are licensed under GPL which means
we can't use them unless we publish our own source code (this is a commercial
application we are developing).
You only have to publish the parts that are derived from VNC. I assume
your product does more than just what VNC does, otherwise no one would buy
it.
The reason I thought this might be the right architecture is twofold:
a) sharing memory with user mode would require pre-allocation of a memory
buffer from the non-paged pool (a limited resource), would require
synchronization, notification etc., whereas doing everything in kernel mode
would be able to take advantage of lookaside lists, a preferred method of
memory usage in kernel drivers according to Microsoft documentation;
You're reading way too much into that recommendation. They're saying,
"when you need memory in a kernel driver, lookaside lists are a good way to
do that." However, lookaside lists are certainly NOT a reason to move code
into the kernel. There are a rich array of memory management schemes
available in user-mode, many of which are even better. Kernel mode has
traditionally had a dearth of such schemes.
--
- Tim Roberts, timr@xxxxxxxxx
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
.
- References:
- Re: Mirror Driver Architecture
- From: Tim Roberts
- Re: Mirror Driver Architecture
- From: Ronny S
- Re: Mirror Driver Architecture
- Prev by Date: Re: memory limitation per process?
- Next by Date: Re: WM_CHAR
- Previous by thread: Re: Mirror Driver Architecture
- Next by thread: Re: Mirror Driver Architecture
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
