Every so often someone mentions that function X() is documented or
prototyped in the IFS but not in the DDK. Could those knowledgeable or
experienced comment on the theory (what MS prescribes) and practice
(what MS lives with) of things “documented” in the IFS but not in the
DDK?
–
If replying by e-mail, please remove “nospam.” from the address.
James Antognini
My limited experience is that CC, MM and other functions that Microsoft
considers applicable to file systems or file system filters are only
documented in the IFS Kit. Gotta give you something for signing in blood
and the $1000.
----- Original Message -----
From: “James Antognini”
Newsgroups: ntdev
To: “NT Developers Interest List”
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 11:26 AM
Subject: [ntdev] DDK versus IFS documentation (was: Re:
MmProbeAndLockPages - Proble.)
> Every so often someone mentions that function X() is documented or
> prototyped in the IFS but not in the DDK. Could those knowledgeable or
> experienced comment on the theory (what MS prescribes) and practice
> (what MS lives with) of things “documented” in the IFS but not in the
> DDK?
>
> –
> If replying by e-mail, please remove “nospam.” from the address.
>
> James Antognini
>
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@yoshimuni.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
“James Antognini” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> Every so often someone mentions that function X() is documented or
> prototyped in the IFS but not in the DDK. Could those knowledgeable or
> experienced comment on the theory (what MS prescribes) and practice
> (what MS lives with) of things “documented” in the IFS but not in the
> DDK?
>
At this point, the division is largely a result of history more than
anything. The IFS kit was a long time coming… we waiting, oh, 6 years
(IIRC) for it to be released.
To this day, the IFS Kit is distributed under a different license than the
DDK.
The “rule”, as I understand it, is that things that are in NTIFS.H but not
in wdm.h or ntddk.h are available only for use by File Systems and File
System Filter Drivers. They are not intended for use in “typical” WDM
drivers.
Understand, it’s not like there’s a committee who reviews and approves which
DDIs go into which file. The way it works is that file system developers at
MS add DDIs that they think are needed for file system development to
ntifs.h. They generally don’t think much about the other files (wdm.h or
ntddk.h) because they don’t use them.
We could all dream of a world, some day, when all the headers will be
rationalized,
Peter
OSR
Any chance the IFS licensing is going to change? It seems a bit antiquated
now with the state of things. I can see where at one time there was a
compelling reason for the strict licensing, but with all of the reverse
engineered headers and incorrect file system filter drivers proliferating,
it seems the correct information getting proliferated as well would be a
beneficial thing. The licensing is so strict so as to limit folks such as
yourself from even handing out good free samples. I don’t think that is
necessary today??
–
Bill McKenzie
Compuware Corporation
http://www.compuware.com/products/driverstudio/
“Peter Viscarola” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> “James Antognini” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >
> > Every so often someone mentions that function X() is documented or
> > prototyped in the IFS but not in the DDK. Could those knowledgeable or
> > experienced comment on the theory (what MS prescribes) and practice
> > (what MS lives with) of things “documented” in the IFS but not in the
> > DDK?
> >
>
> At this point, the division is largely a result of history more than
> anything. The IFS kit was a long time coming… we waiting, oh, 6 years
> (IIRC) for it to be released.
>
> To this day, the IFS Kit is distributed under a different license than the
> DDK.
>
> The “rule”, as I understand it, is that things that are in NTIFS.H but not
> in wdm.h or ntddk.h are available only for use by File Systems and File
> System Filter Drivers. They are not intended for use in “typical” WDM
> drivers.
>
> Understand, it’s not like there’s a committee who reviews and approves
which
> DDIs go into which file. The way it works is that file system developers
at
> MS add DDIs that they think are needed for file system development to
> ntifs.h. They generally don’t think much about the other files (wdm.h or
> ntddk.h) because they don’t use them.
>
> We could all dream of a world, some day, when all the headers will be
> rationalized,
>
> Peter
> OSR
>
>
>
>
>