Ros-dev

ros-dev@reactos.org

5789 discussions

by James Tabor

Hi all, I think this is important to share to the discussion. From one of the developers with FreeDOS, Eric Auer. Thanks, James -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Freedos-user] re: FAT and other file systems Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:16:34 +0100 (MET) From: Eric Auer <eric(a)coli.uni-sb.de> Reply-To: freedos-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net To: freedos-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net Hi James, > > And I think it is not more difficult to write HFS or FFS in the kernel > > of FreeDOS than ReiserFS or XFS or all the other candidates. I would like to comment this as follows: The Linux kernel modules for ext3+jbd take 131+59k of memory. Reiserfs takes 243k (243*1000 bytes, too lazy to convert to units of 1024 bytes). On the other hand, FAT core takes 38k and you use it with either MSDOS (8k) or VFAT (13k) implementations. Only the VFAT (long file name enabled) module of Linux is affected by the 3 MS patents mentioned on the MS homepage. > There is no way around this, unless someone will write a disclaimer, "Before > you install FreeDos, do you want to enable Fat32 Patented Features"? Microsoft WANTS you to believe that they patented FAT32. Actually they patented their clever but twisted way to store short and long filenames in the same directory, in a way which allows LFN-unaware operating systems to use the drive without getting confused by the LFN data and usually also without damaging the LFN data either. But you already point that out yourself: > We are > facing the same issue with Ros. When I use FreeDos, I use the basic 8.3 > file system, so I don't see that as a major problem. The point here is the > patent is about LFN, basic 8.3 is not effected. So the disclaimer would only be displayed when you install the DOSLFN package: "Install DOSLFN, which might have patent issues?". FreeDOS as a DOS operating system itself is not affected by that problem. Plus MS does have a disclaimer about their licensing, too: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/download/hardware/fatgen103.pdf which is more than 5 years old by now... allows you to be compatible to all their FAT (including LFN) stuff for the purpose of booting, OS installation, diagnosis, firmware, similar things. They also tell that making/installing operating systems may use all aspects of FAT. You could see this in a pessimist way (you are allowed to develop and compile your OS on a LFN enabled host system) or in a more optimistic way (your operating system itself is allowed to use LFN because it simply is an operating system). MS is targetting two groups at the moment: Vendors of USB sticks who preinstall files on their sticks, and vendors of cams and mp3 players and similar devices. FreeDOS is neither of those. But I did notice that my hardware mp3 player does not support LFN. It only shows the id3 text, if available, as "long song name", and is limited to showing the SHORT file name as song name otherwise. Looks like the vendor of the player did not want to pay MS for each device. Digicams have similar issues - they usually generate filenames like dsc0815 dot jpg and store all extra "title/name" information inside the file (jpeg comment, EXIF data...?). Eric PS: I assume that you mean ReactOS, the free open WinNT clone, when you mention Ros. ReactOS without LFN would not be the same... ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

19 years, 3 months

Patent on FAT

by Murphy, Ged (Bolton)

I'm reading reports of a US patent on FAT. What's going on and how will this effect us? The US patent rules are seriously out of control :( Ged ************************************************************************ The information contained in this message or any of its attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk <mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message. Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries. Further information can be found at www.exide.com

19 years, 3 months

MS's patent claims for FAT

by Wierd_w

I have found the full texts for the patents for FAT. The links are very long, so I expect them to get clipped. Regardless, here it goes anyway. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=… http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=… http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=… Those are all three patents listed by the MS FAT patent notification page at MS. I note how their claims arent specific about what kind of 'memory storage' the FAT structure is located in--- MS is being really paranoid about it. Still, IANAL, but I would say this is grounds for an equitable estoppel. MS has allowed royalty free use of FAT for how many years now? How many industries rely on FAT support, as a De-Facto standard for floppies and flash media? Sounds like a textbook case for Equitable Estoppel. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/7F1E56D5-7EC1-4CEB-86B3943F6990FF77… (First item) I would bring this to the FSF's attention. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

19 years, 3 months

RE: [ros-dev] Patent on FAT

by Murphy, Ged (Bolton)

Another twist in the tale : http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2809681376.html Ged. ************************************************************************ The information contained in this message or any of its attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk <mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message. Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries. Further information can be found at www.exide.com

19 years, 3 months

Compilation Units - Dealing with the lack of PCH in Wine

by Steven Edwards

Hi, I have manually made a compilation unit and a patch with a 1 line diff for uuid+shell32 and took my build from 30+ secs down to 9 on gcc. Alex reported a drop from 22 to 1 on msvc. We need to create a master source file for each Wine dll like the one attached and add some hacks for the errors that popup. I have not tested the resulting shell32.dll but it should work the same. I do not think we can automate generation of the compilation unit sources for the Wine code due to the hacks we will need to add like in the attached file. -- Steven Edwards - ReactOS and Wine developer "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

19 years, 3 months

trunk is broken

by Hartmut Birr

Hi, I'm not able to install ros from the current trunk on real hardware. At the end of the second stage setup I see a reset, which seems to be a triple fault. After the reset, I'm again on the second stage setup. - Hartmut

19 years, 3 months

Broken Message Dispatching in Win32k

by Alex Ionescu

Hi, After applying my user-mode callback patch, I sometimes see a bugcheck caused by my debugging code. It seems that we do user-mode callbacks with Kernel APCs disabled (just like we also did them with PreviousMode == KernelMode, thank God that I had to "break" HEAD to find this huge bug... but that's another story). The old code "worked" because it did not check for this serious mistake. Normally, I've noticed that messages are sent through co_IntSendMessage which is called with KernelApcDisable == -1. That function calls some unlocking functions and then does the Callback, which is called with KernelApcDisable == 0, which is good. However, co_IntSendMessage is sometimes being called from co_MsqPeekHardwareMessage. DPRINT1("ApcState: %x\n", KeGetCurrentThread()->KernelApcDisable); WaitObjects[1] = MessageQueue->NewMessages; WaitObjects[0] = &HardwareMessageQueueLock; do { UserLeaveCo(); WaitStatus = KeWaitForMultipleObjects(2, WaitObjects, WaitAny, UserRequest, UserMode, FALSE, NULL, NULL); UserEnterCo(); DPRINT1("ApcState: %x\n", KeGetCurrentThread()->KernelApcDisable); while (co_MsqDispatchOneSentMessage(MessageQueue)) { DPRINT1("ApcState: %x\n", KeGetCurrentThread()->KernelApcDisable); } DPRINT1("ApcState: %x\n", KeGetCurrentThread()->KernelApcDisable); } while (NT_SUCCESS(WaitStatus) && STATUS_WAIT_0 != WaitStatus); In this loop, the first KernelApcState is -1. After the wait, it becomes -2. Now normally there is nothing to dispatch, so the function continues, and the -2 later becomes a -3 after another lock, then gradually goes down to -2, then back to -1. So the function enters with -1 and exits with -1, which is normal. However, if the Message Queue *does* have a message on it, then co_MsqDispatchOneSentMessage ends up being called. Remember that after the wait we're now at -2. So that function will then call co_IntSendMessage at -2, which will lower ir it to -1 before the callback. But now the callback runs at -1, which means Kernel APCs are disabled... so we bugcheck. I have absolutely NO knowledge of Win32k Message Queues/MesssageSending, but something defintely seems wrong to me here...can anyone help please? Best regards, Alex Ionescu

19 years, 3 months

Re: [ros-svn] [hbirr] 20793: - We cannot access the OwnerTable without locking the resource.

by Hartmut Birr

hbirr(a)svn.reactos.org wrote: > - We cannot access the OwnerTable without locking the resource. > - The shared waiters may wait also on the semaphore. It makes no sense to boost a waiting thread. > - The thread header is initialized like KeWaitForSingleObject (?, ?, ?, TRUE, ?). During the boost, > possible the dispatcher lock is released but the thread block (WaitNext) isn't changed. > > > > Updated files: > trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ex/resource.c > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-svn mailing list > Ros-svn(a)reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-svn > > Oops, I've copied the wrong commit message. The correct is: - We cannot access the OnerTable without locking the resource. - The shared waiters may wait also on the semaphore. It makes no sence to boost a waiting thread. - The thread header is initialized like KeWaitForSingleObject (?, ?, ?, TRUE, ?). During the boost, possible the dispatcher lock is released but the thread block (WaitNext) isn't changed. - Hartmut

19 years, 3 months

Bug Check in Marea.c

by James Tabor

Hi all, With real hardware and revision 20802, At the end of first stage and after hitting the Finish button, I can reproduce this every time too, KeBugCheck at ./ntoskrnl/mm/marea.c:901 A problem has been detected and ReactOS has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer. Technical information: *** STOP: 0x00000000 (0x00000000,0x00000000,0x00000000,0x00000000) Frames: <ntoskrnl.exe:1676 (./ntoskrnl/ke/bug.c:483 (KeBugCheckEx))> <ntoskrnl.exe:168d (./ntoskrnl/ke/bug.c:504 (KeBugCheck))> <ntoskrnl.exe:4342b (./ntoskrnl/mm/marea.c:0 ())> <ntoskrnl.exe:434c4 (./ntoskrnl/mm/process.c:0 ())> <ntoskrnl.exe:55c12 (./ntoskrnl/ps/kill.c:200 (PspDeleteThread))> <ntoskrnl.exe:50cdd (./ntoskrnl/ob/object.c:0 ())> <ntoskrnl.exe:518ce (./ntoskrnl/ob/handle.c:254 (ObpDeleteHandle))> <ntoskrnl.exe:51a0b (./ntoskrnl/ob/handle.c:1112 (NtClose))> <ntoskrnl.exe:6440c (ntoskrnl/ke/i386/syscall.S:372 (KiSystemService))> <KERNEL32.dll:a697 (./lib/kernel32/misc/handle.c:0 ())> Entered debugger on embedded INT3 at 0x0008:0x80073b86. kdb:> bt Eip: <ntoskrnl.exe:73b87 (lib/rtl/i386/debug_asm.S:28 (DbgBreakPointWithStatus))> Frames: <ntoskrnl.exe:1676 (./ntoskrnl/ke/bug.c:483 (KeBugCheckEx))> <ntoskrnl.exe:168d (./ntoskrnl/ke/bug.c:504 (KeBugCheck))> <ntoskrnl.exe:4342b (./ntoskrnl/mm/marea.c:0 ())> <ntoskrnl.exe:434c4 (./ntoskrnl/mm/process.c:0 ())> <ntoskrnl.exe:55c12 (./ntoskrnl/ps/kill.c:200 (PspDeleteThread))> <ntoskrnl.exe:50cdd (./ntoskrnl/ob/object.c:0 ())> <ntoskrnl.exe:518ce (./ntoskrnl/ob/handle.c:254 (ObpDeleteHandle))> <ntoskrnl.exe:51a0b (./ntoskrnl/ob/handle.c:1112 (NtClose))> <ntoskrnl.exe:6440c (ntoskrnl/ke/i386/syscall.S:372 (KiSystemService))> <KERNEL32.dll:a697 (./lib/kernel32/misc/handle.c:0 ())> <winlogon.exe:1ae2> <winlogon.exe:20f6> <winlogon.exe:339a> <winlogon.exe:11e7> <winlogon.exe:1258> <00000000> kdb:> I go into ntoskrnl/mm/marea.c and at line 891 I change DPRINT to DPRINT1, now the system reboots and runs normal. I even have Abiword running with Winefile. Thanks, James

19 years, 3 months

Re: [ros-diffs] [hbirr] 20793: - We cannot access the OwnerTable without locking the resource.

by Alex Ionescu

hbirr(a)svn.reactos.org wrote: > if (!Resource->ActiveCount) > { > > >- /* Nobody owns it, so let's take control */ > > >+ if (Resource->NumberOfSharedWaiters == 0) >+ { >+ Owner = &Resource->OwnerThreads[1]; >+ } >+ else >+ { >+ /* Find a free entry */ >+ Owner = ExpFindFreeEntry(Resource, &OldIrql); >+ if (!Owner) goto TryAcquire; >+ } >+ >+ Owner->OwnerThread = Thread; >+ Owner->OwnerCount = 1; > > > Resource->ActiveCount = 1; > > >- Resource->OwnerThreads[1].OwnerThread = Thread; >- Resource->OwnerThreads[1].OwnerCount = 1; > > > > /* Release the lock and return */ > ExReleaseResourceLock(&Resource->SpinLock, OldIrql); > > This change makes no sense. Note that we check for !Resource->ActiveCount. This, by definition implies that there CANNOT be any exclusive owner or shared owner. Access to the resource should be granted instanteously. Best regards, Alex Ionescu

19 years, 3 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Ros-dev