Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!trantor.umd.edu!louie
From: louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: one last word on my simple device problem
Message-ID: <2159@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 24 Dec 87 14:55:46 GMT
References: <8712241144.AA26621@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: ris@umd5.umd.edu
Reply-To: louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 21

In article <8712241144.AA26621@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
>						The reply port is actually
>	supplied by the device driver (I think.. at least it is NOT supplied
>	by the DoIO() function, and NOT by the user, so that leaves the 
>	device driver!)

This give me a real uncomfortable feeling inside.  I'm not so sure that the
use doesn't need to provide a ReplyPort for requests that are started using
DoIO().  For all of the sample device drivers I've seen, as well as the
diddly drivers that I've written, it sure seems that the user has to provide
the port.

In fact, the device can't provide its own internal reply port for DoIO() to
use.  This is because the device doesn't know if he was called by DoIO(), or
if the user decided to just do a BeginIO on his own with the QUICKIO flag
set.



Louis A. Mamakos  WA3YMH    Internet: louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU
University of Maryland, Computer Science Center - Systems Programming