Mostly i can recover from kernel crashes in linux at least safely reboot
sometimes even remove
my module and test it again but it’s good only for developing process you
want you commercial
product will crash.
I think part of drivers can’t be moved to user mode for example i can’t see
any reason why
usb drivers will not be in user land it’s not actually (directly) touch
hardware.
If i’m not wrong in 2.6 kernel will be provide user mode api for usb drivers.
Regards Ilya.
At 11:13 AM 4/29/2002 -0500, you wrote:
I though unix had done something similar to this for some of their
‘drivers’. Is this true?
- jb
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Peter Viscarola
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:03 AM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: Philosophical Rant [was Re: Writing Drivers in
Java]
>“Art Baker” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >
> >
> > A driver is a piece of the operating system – a privileged extension
> > of
>the
> > I/O Manager. The correct approach is to make it “perfect” during the
>design,
> > coding, and testing phases of its life (i.e., before it goes out into
> > the world). It’s NOT appropriate to be sending out buggy drivers with
> > the hope that, somehow, the operating system’s protection scheme will
> > keep your driver from doing too much harm.
> >
>This happens to be a topic in which I’m very interested.
>
>In my experience darn few people send their drivers out hoping that the
>O/S protection scheme keeps them “from doing too much harm.”
>
>On the other hand, there are tons of semi-competent and grossly
>incompetent people writing drivers for Windows these days. In fact,
>it’s so freakin’ complicated to write anything more than a trivial
>driver that even otherwise good engineers can pretty easily fall into
>the semi-competent category.
>
>Many of you have read MY personal philosophical rant (ie. my
>Pontification) in The NT Insider a few months back on moving all the
>drivers that aren’t required to boot the system out to user mode. I
>honestly think that everyone would be better off if all "non essential
>drivers " (admittedly a term requiring definition) were moved someplace
>where their faults could not easily affect the stability of the overall
>operating system.
>
>The other day, right in the middle of playing a Snoop Doggy Dogg CD, the
>some audio driver blue screened my system. I was also in mail at the
>time. I was not happy. Fortunately, Outlook is pretty
>failure-resilient. I only lost my last few minutes worth of work. But
>it was still annoying.
>
>I realize it would take some serious work, but I really think it’s
>possible to create a windows driver environment that would make it close
>to impossible for a driver to crash the system. If the driver failed,
>just unload it and restart it. How cool would THAT be?!?
>
>In terms of the performance issue: Performance is largely a specious
>argument. There’s more CPU time available on modern processors than
>(almost) anybody knows what to do with. Would you, as a user, pay a 10%
>CPU utilization penalty for a system that never crashed?? Damn! I know
>I would.
>
>Peter
>OSR
>
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@earthlink.net To
unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@jungo.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%