* On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Christian Costa wrote: > 2012/10/5 Dmitry Timoshkov <dmi...@baikal.ru> > > > > What matters is what drivers need. I can add some typical fields if > > > needed but that could be done in other patches when needed as well. > > > > There are basic things like the header and object list management, > > besides things like ActiveProcessors, Affinity, BasePriority is not > > hard to fill from the start. Probably you need to duscuss how this > > should be done, something tells me that without server support this is > > not going to work very well. > > What do you mean by object list management ?There is only one element > for now : nothing before nothing after. Unless lists are circular. > > I'm open for discussion but it's hard without an idea of what drivers do > and what we want to support since wine is not intended to run all driver > types. > > So at the beginning, maybe we can do something simple and improve the > infrastructure as needs appear.
This is nth time the discussion drives to the question: How do you test ntoskrnl &co functionality, folks? I suppose Christian debugs some application which loads own, custom sys-drivers. Wine has no tests which would build / load some simple sys-driver; and that needs to change in future, I'd say. Well, this topic already was brought in once by Damjan Jovanovic. [1] Plus, there are guys compiling kernel mode drivers with MinGW(-64) already: [2][3][4] Or am I misunderstanding the right way to go? S. [1] http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2010-March/082460.html [2] http://strdup.livejournal.com/34596.html [3] http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/forums/forum/723797/topic/3163052 [4] http://www.fccps.cz/download/adv/frr/win32_ddk_mingw/win32_ddk_mingw.html