[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231206121732.7154-1-jtornosm@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 13:17:32 +0100
From: Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez <jtornosm@...hat.com>
To: stern@...land.harvard.edu
Cc: davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com,
greg@...ah.com,
jtornosm@...hat.com,
kuba@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
oneukum@...e.com,
pabeni@...hat.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] net: usb: ax88179_178a: avoid failed operations when device is disconnected
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists