safedisc

[Ivan Leo Puoti]

Raphael Junqueira asked on bugzilla what the safedisc status is. Currently it works fine, and I 
believe what we have is more or less ready for CVS. However Vitaly told me Alexandre didn't like the 
object manager Vitaly wrote, mostly he didn't like permanent objects, that drivers depend on. I 
haven't talked to Alexandre about this but hopefully some reasonable solution can be found so we can 
get Vitaly's OM into wineserver (I mean my original implementation that uses pointers as handles 
also works, but things look better with a real OM). So let's try and trigger some community 
discussion, we are talking about the guts of wine after all. Vitaly, what's the OM status currently? 
Alexandre, what didn't you like about it?

Ivan.

[Vitaliy Margolen]

Monday, November 21, 2005, 4:54:56 PM, Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
> Raphael Junqueira asked on bugzilla what the safedisc status is. Currently it works fine, and I
> believe what we have is more or less ready for CVS. However Vitaly
> told me Alexandre didn't like the 
> object manager Vitaly wrote, mostly he didn't like permanent
> objects, that drivers depend on. I 
> haven't talked to Alexandre about this but hopefully some reasonable solution can be found so we can
> get Vitaly's OM into wineserver (I mean my original implementation that uses pointers as handles
> also works, but things look better with a real OM). So let's try and trigger some community
> discussion, we are talking about the guts of wine after all. Vitaly, what's the OM status currently?
> Alexandre, what didn't you like about it?

Following Alexandre's suggestions I've managed to get OM working without
support for permanent objects. There will be some modification required
for ntoskrnl for that to work. I'm just about finished integrating new OM
into ntoskrnl tree and almost ready to give it a try.

As far as OM goes it's mostly finished and passes all but two of om
tests. Also it don't see any side-affects from it either. All the
programs I've tested work in the same way as they were before. All named
object moved to directories and using RootDirectory part of
OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES for create/open.

Attached is the final revision of the directory object implementation. If
it looks ok I'm ready to send some patches <g>

Vitaliy

[Saulius Krasuckas]

* On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> - Monday, November 21, 2005, 4:54:56 PM, Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
> > Raphael Junqueira asked on bugzilla what the safedisc status is. 
> > Currently it works fine, and I believe what we have is more or less 
> > ready for CVS. However Vitaly told me Alexandre didn't like the object 
> > manager Vitaly wrote, mostly he didn't like permanent objects, that 
> > drivers depend on.
>
> Following Alexandre's suggestions I've managed to get OM working without 
> support for permanent objects. There will be some modification required 
> for ntoskrnl for that to work. I'm just about finished integrating new 
> OM into ntoskrnl tree and almost ready to give it a try.
>
> As far as OM goes it's mostly finished and passes all but two of om 
> tests. Also it don't see any side-affects from it either. All the 
> programs I've tested work in the same way as they were before. All named 
> object moved to directories and using RootDirectory part of 
> OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES for create/open.
>
> Attached is the final revision of the directory object implementation. 
> If it looks ok I'm ready to send some patches <g>

Any updates on this?  What lefts to be done for ntoskrnl to enter the 
tree? :)

[Damjan Jovanovic]

--- Saulius Krasuckas  wrote:
> - On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> > - Monday, November 21, 2005, 4:54:56 PM, Ivan Leo
>
> Puoti wrote:
> > > Raphael Junqueira asked on bugzilla what the
>
> safedisc status is.
> > > Currently it works fine, and I believe what we
>
> have is more or less
> > > ready for CVS. However Vitaly told me Alexandre
>
> didn't like the object
> > > manager Vitaly wrote, mostly he didn't like
>
> permanent objects, that
> > > drivers depend on.
> >
> > Following Alexandre's suggestions I've managed to
>
> get OM working without
> > support for permanent objects. There will be some
>
> modification required
> > for ntoskrnl for that to work. I'm just about
>
> finished integrating new
> > OM into ntoskrnl tree and almost ready to give it
>
> a try.
> > As far as OM goes it's mostly finished and passes
>
> all but two of om
> > tests. Also it don't see any side-affects from it
>
> either. All the
> > programs I've tested work in the same way as they
>
> were before. All named
> > object moved to directories and using
>
> RootDirectory part of
> > OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES for create/open.
> >
> > Attached is the final revision of the directory
>
> object implementation.
> > If it looks ok I'm ready to send some patches <g>
>
> Any updates on this?  What lefts to be done for
> ntoskrnl to enter the 
> tree? :)

I've waited so long for this mythical ntoskrnl.exe
that "doesn't change NtDeviceIoControl()" and "uses
IPCs" to finally enter CVS. Can you please mail around
a sample of the code so we have some idea of how on
earth it works, I'm dying to know...

Thank you
Damjan

__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com