Hi, > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] proc_pid_io.5: mention atomicity in atomicity note Please use uppercase after the prefix. That is: proc_pid_io.5: Mention atomicity in atomicity note At least to me, it seems to help see where the sentence starts. Maybe you can convince me of the opposite, though, if you try. On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 03:26:50PM +0100, наб wrote: > And drop "current implementation" > (wording still literal from Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst). > Of course this describes the current implementation. > > Signed-off-by: Ahelenia Ziemiańska <nabijaczleweli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > man5/proc_pid_io.5 | 9 ++++----- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/man5/proc_pid_io.5 b/man5/proc_pid_io.5 > index 4d97bd95f..181717192 100644 > --- a/man5/proc_pid_io.5 > +++ b/man5/proc_pid_io.5 > @@ -82,11 +82,10 @@ .SH DESCRIPTION > .RE > .IP > .IR Note : > -In the current implementation, things are a bit racy on 32-bit systems: > -if process A reads process B's > -.IR /proc/ pid /io > -while process B is updating one of these 64-bit counters, > -process A could see an intermediate result. > +these counters are not atomic: > +on systems where 64-bit integer operations may tear, > +a counter could be updated simultaneously with a read, > +yielding an incorrect intermediate value. Hmmm, I think this should be a CAVEATS section. Since you'll have to send more patches for this page, would you mind adding one that moves this paragraph to a CAVEATS section? Anyway, I've applied this patch. Thanks! Cheers, Alex > .IP > Permission to access this file is governed by > .BR ptrace (2) > -- > 2.39.2 > -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
