iness with the card. All of these contexts run concurrently (except for the 6th, presumably). The 1st is safe against the 2nd and 3rd because of the way how a request packet is carefully submitted to the hardware. A race between 2nd and 3rd has been fixed a while ago (bug 9617). The 4th is almost safe against 1st, 2nd, 3rd; there are issues with it if huge scheduling latencies occur, to be fixed separately. The 5th looks safe against 2nd, 3rd, and 4th but is unsafe against 1st. Maybe this could be fixed with an explicit state variable in struct fw_transaction. But this would require fw_transaction to be rewritten as only dynamically allocatable object with reference counting --- not a good solution if we also can simply kill this 5th accessing context (replace it by the 4th). Signed-off-by: Stefan Richter ­¸x«Yx