[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yt5gBZe9F1BE0MVF@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 11:19:01 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] random: handle archrandom with multiple longs
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 03:02:07PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Since callers need to check this return value and loop anyway, each arch
> implementation does not bother implementing its own loop to try again to
> fill the maximum number of longs. Additionally, all existing callers
> pass in a constant max_longs parameter.
Hmm, maybe this has come up already but it reads weird.
If I have a function arch_get_random_longs(), I'd expect it to give me
the number of longs I requested or say, error.
Why do the callers need to loop?
If I have to loop, I'd call the "get me one long" function and loop N
times.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists