Re: [PATCH 4/6] proc_pid_io.5: mention atomicity in atomicity note

[Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1776 bytes --]

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@nabijaczleweli.xyz>
> ---
>  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 #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]