Re: [RFC] enhanced version of net_random()

From: David S. Miller
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 01:31:25 EST


On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:28:57 +0200
Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:51:40 -0700
> Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Here is another alternative, using tansworthe generator. It uses percpu
> > state. The one small semantic change is the net_srandom() only affects
> > the current cpu's seed. The problem was that having it change all cpu's
> > seed would mean adding locking
>
> I would just update the other CPUs without locking. Taking
> a random number from a partially updated state shouldn't be a big
> issue.

I personally don't think we need to touch the other cpus
at all, and that having a different current seed on each
cpu might actually be a good thing.

Stephen, I like this one a lot, especially compared to
what we had before. I'm going to add this to my tree for
the time being.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/