Re: [PATCH 01/10] random: make 'add_interrupt_randomness()' dosomething sane
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Thu Jul 05 2012 - 18:21:31 EST
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Like this?
Looks fine to me.
Although I think it might be better to stay closer to what we used to
do, and just 'or' in the action flags rather than make it some
conditional. And then at the end, do
if (!(flags & __IRQF_TIMER))
instead on that or'ed flags value. Otherwise gcc will create silly
conditional moves (or worse still, conditional branches) just for that
"random" variable assignment.
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/