Anonymous user
Uniform Driver Interface: Difference between revisions
m
This isn't a notepad :)
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
(Initial stuff on UDI) |
m (This isn't a notepad :)) |
||
Line 12:
* Portability, which was mentioned in the above section, is perhaps the primary concern for which UDI was developed in the first place. All we can hope for is that enough operating systems will embrace the model so we can actually take advantage of it.
* Performance is comparable or better than that of legacy drivers. Let's face it, performance is always important. UDI features a non-blocking model, besides the blocking one, a synchronization model for increased MP scalability and much more. UDI drivers have proven themselves over DDI drivers (and others)
* Compatibility has also been taken into account. UDI environments can be implemented regardless of the OS architecture (monolithic kernel vs. microkernel, POSIX vs. non-POSIX, etc.) with no extra overhead for any exotic design one might think of.
* Stability is usually overlooked by the design and falls back to the implementation phase. UDI tries to eliminate some categories of potential bugs, such as (but not limited to) resource leaks and deadlocks.
| |||