Wesley Parish wrote: > Isn't the NT code base supposed to have multi-queued IO? to stop such > problems? At least that was the NT-zealots' boast during the NT-vs-OS/2 days > I'd say it's one thing what the system has ability to do do, and another thing entirely what Explorer does with it. Not knowing it's source, I can only say "by the fruit shall the tree be known". > Shouldn't the routine to copy hold another IO queue in hand "just in case", > and hand the copying over to it as soon as it hits such a snag? Precisely. A fault list or whatever you want to call it. This could then be post-processed at the option of the user.
> Mind you, I could think of additional uses for a multi-queued IO - having a > anti-malware program kibitzing on the copying, and stalling anything that's > questionable, while handing the copying over to Yet Another Copying IO Queue. > Bear in mind that there's an inherent danger in exposing the shell's file copying mechanism. While it may seem a convenient way to tie in a malware scanner, it could be used to conveniently inject a payload in every file the shell copies if a "plug-in" gets write access to the file data. Because of this risk any "plug-in" would have to be handed just a copy of the data, which would lead to terrible inefficiency due to all that redundant data copying. Rock on // Love _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
