What makes an internal IOCTL to being officially documented and supported?

1) Mentioned in the DDK documentation
2) Defined in a ntddXXX include file in the inc subdir of the ddk
3) Defined in a ntddXXX include file in an inc subdir of the src tree

I suppose that the case 2 is good enough. But what about the last case?
Seems to be a grey area. If it's official why the include file is not in the
main inc subdir. But on the other hand, if it's private why use that
particular filename convention?

Thanks

Re: Official INTERNAL Ioctls by Maxim

Maxim
Tue Aug 09 13:39:55 CDT 2005

Mentioned in header I think.

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

"ijor" <ijor@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:2FC643A4-EAE6-47B5-8648-C95C59C1A281@microsoft.com...
> What makes an internal IOCTL to being officially documented and supported?
>
> 1) Mentioned in the DDK documentation
> 2) Defined in a ntddXXX include file in the inc subdir of the ddk
> 3) Defined in a ntddXXX include file in an inc subdir of the src tree
>
> I suppose that the case 2 is good enough. But what about the last case?
> Seems to be a grey area. If it's official why the include file is not in the
> main inc subdir. But on the other hand, if it's private why use that
> particular filename convention?
>
> Thanks
>



Re: Official INTERNAL Ioctls by James

James
Tue Aug 09 17:29:10 CDT 2005

I'd say an IOCTL is official if it has a DDK doc section devoted to it and
headed with its name, like IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO.

--
James Antognini
Windows DDK and WDK Support


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.



"ijor" <ijor@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:2FC643A4-EAE6-47B5-8648-C95C59C1A281@microsoft.com...
> What makes an internal IOCTL to being officially documented and supported?
>
> 1) Mentioned in the DDK documentation
> 2) Defined in a ntddXXX include file in the inc subdir of the ddk
> 3) Defined in a ntddXXX include file in an inc subdir of the src tree
>
> I suppose that the case 2 is good enough. But what about the last case?
> Seems to be a grey area. If it's official why the include file is not in
> the
> main inc subdir. But on the other hand, if it's private why use that
> particular filename convention?
>
> Thanks
>