Re: why no call to add_interrupt_randomness() on PPC?

From: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel (linux-kernel@alex.org.uk)
Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 10:47:29 EST

Next message: Tim Waugh: "Re: Kernel Locking Up"
Previous message: Erik Andersen: "Re: [Patch] sysinfo compatibility"
In reply to: Chris Friesen: "Re: why no call to add_interrupt_randomness() on PPC?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> I was looking at turning on SA_SAMPLE_RANDOM in
> our network driver, but then I realized that it would have no effect
> because it isn't even supported on PPC.

adding a call to add_interrupt_randomness() sounds like a good
idea if only for consistency and certainly does no harm (especially
if no net drivers use it), except that the timing is very coarsely
grained (jiffies) on PPC. It would be even better if you added
some cycle clock reading code to random.c for the PPC (in addition
to the i386 specific stuff) or better abstracted it all out into
arch directories.

Adding SA_SAMPLE_RANDOM to net devices: well, see other thread
ad-nauseam & make up your own mind :-)

--
Alex Bligh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Tim Waugh: "Re: Kernel Locking Up"
Previous message: Erik Andersen: "Re: [Patch] sysinfo compatibility"
In reply to: Chris Friesen: "Re: why no call to add_interrupt_randomness() on PPC?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 21:00:49 EST