Hello Alan, > The __ax88179_read_cmd() and __ax88179_write_cmd() routines are > asynchronous with respect to ax88179_disconnect(), right? Or at least, > they are if they run as a result of the user closing the network > interface. Otherwise there wouldn't be any memory ordering issues. Yes, I think so, they could be asynchronous regarding ax88179_disconnect. > But the memory barriers you added are not the proper solution. What you > need here is _synchronization_, not _ordering_. As it is, the memory > barriers you have added don't do anything; they shouldn't be in the > patch. Ok, thank you for the helpful clarification, let me check it better, I understood it in a wrong way. > If you would like a more in-depth explanation, let me know. Thank you for your help, I will try first, I really appreciate this. Best regards José Ignacio
