Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bryan/completion routine fix #66

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ManOnTheMountainTech
Copy link
Collaborator

WdfRequestSend() just checks to see if the request was delivered to the target driver. This fix sets the block further requests flag after checking the final result of the request in the completion routine.

Restore taillight pool tag to WDF allocations.

Simplified code by querying strings from only IO targets.

Change comments to not use American expressions. Got to matching based on the PDO name. Tie PnP callback removal to the lifetime of the device object.

Revert KdPrintEx to KdPrint. Add documentation and document multithreaded code. Swith to RAII in SetBlackAsync for the target. Improvements for better readability and reliability versus performance.

Use C copy trick and update a comment.
…m struct size of 8 bytes (3) Log SetBlackAsync failures
@ManOnTheMountainTech ManOnTheMountainTech force-pushed the bryan/completion_routine_fix branch from 6c3e235 to e4b1258 Compare March 23, 2024 00:15
Copy link
Owner

@forderud forderud left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why does a "routine fix" PR need to change almost 400 lines of code?

@ManOnTheMountainTech
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This is a change for work after #54. Following past orders, it is rebased of of main. It would be clearer if it is rebased off of #54. Please advise on the correct procedure for new functionality to PR #54.

@forderud
Copy link
Owner

This is a change for work after #54. Following past orders, it is rebased of of main. It would be clearer if it is rebased off of #54. Please advise on the correct procedure for new functionality to PR #54.

I would then recommend you to first focus on getting #54 approved & merged. You can work on enhancements on top of that later.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants