Comment 3 for bug 813046

It's possible, but all it'd do is cause (if a 'next' proxy is found) ToggleVinylControl(false) to be called on it again, and then ToggleVinylControl(true) to be called on the 'next' one. The window of opportunity is absolutely tiny though, and it would only really make a difference if something in software automated disabled vinyl control for the deck, because a user activating [ChannelX],vinylcontrol_enabled and [vinylcontrol],toggle within a sufficiently small window might as well be impossible.

One thing that can't happen is a pointer going stale, the lock on m_proxies ensures this (sorry, not sure which 'enabling' you were referencing, as the term fits for both "input is enabled for this deck and a vinyl control proxy exists for it" and "input is being used to control the deck").

Thanks for looking over it!