ntdll/cdrom : implement CDROM_Verify to work on Mac Os

James McKenzie jjmckenzie51 at earthlink.net
Fri Dec 31 19:22:30 CST 2010

On 12/31/10 1:50 PM, Charles Davis wrote:
> On 12/31/10 1:11 PM, Ken Thomases wrote:
>> I should add that this patch seem correct to me.  It couldn't hurt to get Charles Davis's input, of course.
> I agree, for now. He should at least put a comment in to the effect of
> "if we got this far, there's already media in the drive."
That was the point I was trying to get to.  Based on Ken's comment 
below, the device is temporary and only exists for the time period that 
the device is in use.
>> MSDN documents that the purpose of IOCTL_*_CHECK_VERIFY is to check if the media has changed.  The Linux and FreeBSD implementations basically just check if there's media in the drive.  On Mac OS X, the BSD device file just plain doesn't exist unless and until there's media mounted.  There's no permanent BSD device file for the drive itself.  So, if CDROM_Verify() is called, which requires that the BSD device file is opened and thus is present, that by itself implies that there's media in the drive.  Therefore, CDROM_Verify() should just return success.
> Makes sense. But the 'right' way to implement this on Mac OS is to ask
> DiskArbitration to tell us when the media changes. (In fact, the right
> way to implement this elsewhere is to ask udev or hald the same thing.)
> Then we can return STATUS_VERIFY_REQUIRED (as documented) when the media
> actually has changed. For now, though, Loïc's patch is OK.
Is this going to be changed sometime in the future to work per the 
> AJ wants to eventually move some (all?) of the disk/CD/DVD/storage
> IOCTLs into mountmgr anyway, where Wine's fake storage drivers are
> hosted. Mountmgr already has infrastructure in place to talk to DA on
> Mac OS and to hald on Linux/FreeBSD, so doing this the 'right' way will
> be much easier there.
This is a good point.  Maybe the effort should be to move the code over 
to mountmgr.sys rather than implement and have to move it later.

And I am aware what the process is, I was asking general questions based 
on what the comments were in the patch.  Basically, the comments did not 
make sense to me and I was asking for clarification.  That was provided 
by both Ken and Charles' comments.

James McKenzie

More information about the wine-devel mailing list