[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAC5umyhhTJWfsFtZ_5Qm_HJHy2+sx7iMgcV=T=MMKLdi50-HQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 20:47:26 +0900
From: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
Venkat Venkatsubra <venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/29] net/: rename net_random() to prandom_u32()
2012/12/25 Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:14:15AM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> Use more preferable function name which implies using a pseudo-random
>> number generator.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
>> Cc: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
>> Cc: Venkat Venkatsubra <venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com>
>> Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
>> Cc: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>
>> Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
>> Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
>> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
>> Cc: linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org
>> Cc: dev@...nvswitch.org
>> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
>> ---
>> include/net/red.h | 2 +-
>> net/802/garp.c | 2 +-
>> net/openvswitch/actions.c | 2 +-
>> net/rds/bind.c | 2 +-
>> net/sctp/socket.c | 2 +-
>> net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c | 2 +-
>> 6 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
> I'm largely indifferent to this patch, but I kind of feel like its just churn.
> Whats the real advantage in making this change? I grant that it clearly
> indicates the type of random number generator we're using at a given call site,
> But for those using net_random, you probably don't care too much about
> the source of your random bits. If you did really want true random vs.
> pseudo-random data, you need to explicitly use the right call. You're previous
> patch series did good cleanup on differentiating the different random calls, but
> this just seems like its removing what is otherwise useful indirection.
I overlooked the importance of net_random() indirection.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll leave all net_random() callers as-is in
the next version.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists