The whole idea of having a protocol stack is that we can set it up in ways
that are independent of the underlying machine hardware and OS structure.
So, for example, I may want to have all seven layers in my peripheral board,
with nothing but a read/write/ioctrl interface between my board and the app.
Or I may have a context-sensitive board that allows me to do all seven
layers on the app side and zero OS participation - like people are beginning
to do with user-side USB and with Unix-style direct rendering. Such
decisions should be independent of the OS - a good, comprehensive, sensible,
OS, should allow a comms designer to put the layers wherever they will fit,
communications should not have to be an OS concern unless the comms designer
says so. I actually strongly believe in moving comms facility out of the
CPU, I see no reason why the whole seven layers are not implemented in the
peripheral board. After all, data is data - an app shouldn’t have to bother
about whether the data is local or remote, and the OS should do nothing but
to pass data descriptors around.
Alberto.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory G. Dyess [mailto:xxxxx@pdq.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 12:03 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] RE: Sending data via ethernet in kernel mode
I’m saying, in general, yes. The USER layer of the 7-layer model should
probably be done in user mode. We’re getting to the point where we’re
trying to push everything down to kernel mode. At the same time, others are
wanting to push drivers up out of Ring 0. Go figure? Taken to extreme, we
wind up with…DOS, where everything ran at the same ring! It’s amazing
how everything comes full circle!
Mainframes/Terminals => Minicomputers
=> Microcomputers
=> Personal Computers
=> Networked PCs
=> Network-based/JAVA apps
=> Large servers/Network Appliances
It’s fun to watch history repeat itself.
Have fun, all!
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Jamey Kirby
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:56 AM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] RE: Sending data via ethernet in kernel mode
So, you say that srv.sys should be written in UM?
Jamey
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Gregory G. Dyess
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:19 AM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] RE: Sending data via ethernet in kernel mode
You ARE kidding, right???
You’re talking about something that should be handled in User mode, not
Kernel. If performance is the reason, then maybe you have the wrong
architecture/OS.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Schalken, Rob
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 9:05 AM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Sending data via ethernet in kernel mode
Importance: High
Can someone help me sending data via the ethernet in kernel mode.
I made a kernel driver in windows NT which receives data. I want to
transport this data using ethernet (TCP/IP). Please can someone help me.
If someone know how, is it possible to send me some sources???
Rob schalken
xxxxx@emdes.nl
xxxxx@hotmail.com
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@pdq.net
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com To
unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@pdq.net
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@compuware.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It
contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named
addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately
and then destroy it.