search

forderud / IntelliMouseDriver

Filter drivers for Microsoft Pro IntelliMouse that implements safety checks and exposes a WMI interface
MIT License
1 stars 1 forks source link

Bryan/better request blocking #67

Closed ManOnTheMountainTech closed 6 months ago

ManOnTheMountainTech commented 6 months ago

Since multiple threads are running in SetBlackAsync at any one time, there is a chance that a thread could match after the taillight has been set black. To ensure that just one thread can get set the taillight black, the set black succeeded flag is checked right before the request is sent. Also, there is inconsistency in checking for a null pDeviceContext. No allocation is performed and non of the samples check for WDF object fetches failing, so the null check was removed.

forderud commented 6 months ago

Since multiple threads are running in SetBlackAsync at any one time, there is a chance that a thread could match after the taillight has been set black.

There's currently no function named SetBlackAsync in this codebase. It therefore makes little sense to use a non-existing function as justification for "better request blocking".

ManOnTheMountainTech commented 6 months ago

Ok. Since #54 is not in, what should I subsequent based on #54 to? Basing off #54 seems logical.

Get Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg

From: Fredrik Orderud @.> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 12:50:42 AM To: forderud/IntelliMouseDriver @.> Cc: Bryan Allen Young @.>; Author @.> Subject: Re: [forderud/IntelliMouseDriver] Bryan/better request blocking (PR #67)

Since multiple threads are running in SetBlackAsync at any one time, there is a chance that a thread could match after the taillight has been set black.

There's currently no function named SetBlackAsync in this codebase. It therefore makes little sense to use a non-existing function as justification for "better request blocking".

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/forderud/IntelliMouseDriver/pull/67#issuecomment-2016400468, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGBDV7YHMKY2XCA5BG2BBR3YZUX5FAVCNFSM6AAAAABFEFBU42VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMJWGQYDANBWHA. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>

forderud commented 6 months ago

Ok. Since #54 is not in, what should I subsequent based on #54 to? Basing off #54 seems logical.

Pull requests must be based on the current state of the codebase on the "main" branch.