Just one point. Maybe the poster should provide in the initial post
anything that would demonstrate a reason for using a non-standard approach.
There are reasons for almost anything and some are valid. However from many
of the posts we have seen, quite a bit of those reasons can be defined as
'PHB' (pointy hair boss). There are ways to do things that are MS approved
and exceptions should be justified in these newsgroups just as you have to
do if you want a WHQL signature.
We all have the ability to use and write for Linux where you can do it your
"Russell Poffenberger" wrote in message
> Thanks for a reasonable answer. The only responses he got at first was
> "this is an upside down design", or "you don't do this". If the first
> responses would have been "Please describe what you are trying to do so we
> can help you with a proper design", it would have been a completely
> different story.
> At 06:57 AM 10/27/2005, you wrote:
>>You shouldn't be flamed. While I am one of the first people to speak out
>>against this for a general purpose driver, like all rules there are
>>exceptions. I was involved in a project that did this for high
>>video, there are times this is needed, but they should be done in
>>essentially embedded systems.
>>The problem with this thread is the OP, has not explained why he feels a
>>need to do this. It could be valid, or not.
> Russ Poffenberger
> Credence Systems Corp.