| To: | Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] enhanced version of net_random() |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:28:57 +0200 |
| Cc: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040813115140.0f09d889@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> |
| References: | <20040812104835.3b179f5a@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <20040812124854.646f1936.davem@redhat.com> <20040813115140.0f09d889@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
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. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] enhanced version of net_random(), Stephen Hemminger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: select implementation not POSIX compliant?, Nick Palmer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] enhanced version of net_random(), Stephen Hemminger |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] enhanced version of net_random(), David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |