Re: overflows in /proc/net/dev

From: Chris Wedgwood <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:33:58 -0700

> I thought the concensurs here was that because doing reliable atomic
> updates of 64-bit values isn't possible on some (most?) 32-bit
> architectures so we need additional locking to make this work which is
> undesirable?  (It might even be a FAQ by now as this comes up fairly
> often).

That's correct.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: overflows in /proc/net/dev
    • From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>

• References:
  • overflows in /proc/net/dev
    • From: Sebastian Claßen <[email protected]>
  • Re: overflows in /proc/net/dev
    • From: Chris Wedgwood <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] fix dst_entry leak in icmp_push_reply()
• Next by Date: Re: HDAPS, Need to park the head for real
• Previous by thread: Re: overflows in /proc/net/dev
• Next by thread: Re: overflows in /proc/net/dev
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]