The WHQL requirements are a moving target. I would not depend on a 10 year old message to know todays reality.
My understanding is some classes of drivers MUST be pure KMDF drivers to pass certification. Actually, I thought some classes (not yours) now had to be UMDF drivers. There often are subtle variations in which test get run based on detected device characteristics. For example, a NIC device with a speed of 10 Gbps or over has slightly different requirements than a slower one. The tests you must pass also can vary based on platform, so a server NIC must pass different tests than a desktop NIC. The actual test code also can have exceptions, like for example a NIC using an Infinband fabric does not have to pass the test that requires reporting the number of dropped receive packets. An ugly part is a NIC using a PCIe fabric still does have to report the number of dropped receive packets, even though it may not be able to, for essentially the same reasons an Infinband fabric can’t. It also turned out to be possible to create behavior In a driver that met the WHQL test criteria for passing. For this particular test, the test script source code was included with the tests, so you could see exactly what the pass/fail criteria was. Many WHQL tests don’t include any source code, although one could argue that since the KMDF source code is publicly visible the WHQL test code should be publicly visible.
I would start by seeing what the WHQL docs say, although my experience is the requirements docs are not well maintained. The real bottom line seems to be you have to run the tests and see exactly which tests are run. It’s possible, there is an XML file or something that contains the master database of exactly which tests to run for each device class.
It could be there are no tests specifically for a volume filter driver, and the passing criteria is you must pass any tests for the storage stack of base devices. Correctly handing cases like boot/crash dump volumes might be hard. I would suggest trying to open a conversation with the WHQL folks at MSFT.
The tests for a WDM volume filter would likely not be very different than for a KMDF volume filter, with the exception of tests for APIs used and using KMDF. Functionally, a WDM and KMDF filter should be identical, as far as the rest of the storage stack is concerned.
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com On Behalf Of xxxxx@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 9:38 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] WHQL for WDM Volume Filter Driver
In one of the posts on OSR, Tim Roberts points out that for some driver types, WHQL requires that the driver be KMDF.
Link : http://osronline.com/showThread.CFM?link=200673
Is that the case with my driver?
—
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
Visit the list online at: http:
MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and software drivers!
Details at http:
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http:</http:></http:></http:>