[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52D192FD.90606@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:52:45 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
CC: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Aruna-Hewapathirane <aruna.hewapathirane@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: replace macros net_random and net_srandom
with direct calls to prandom
On 01/11/2014 07:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 09:52:37AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 07:15 -0500, Aruna-Hewapathirane wrote:
>>> This patch removes the net_random and net_srandom macros and replaces
>>> them with direct calls to the prandom ones. As new commits only seem to
>>> use prandom_u32 there is no use to keep them around.
>>> This change makes it easier to grep for users of prandom_u32.
>>
>> Seems sensible.
>>
>> Also, there may be some value in a future patch
>> to use reciprocal_divide in a few places
>>
>>> diff --git a/net/802/garp.c b/net/802/garp.c
>>> @@ -397,7 +397,7 @@ static void garp_join_timer_arm(struct garp_applicant *app)
>>> {
>>> unsigned long delay;
>>>
>>> - delay = (u64)msecs_to_jiffies(garp_join_time) * net_random() >> 32;
>>> + delay = (u64)msecs_to_jiffies(garp_join_time) * prandom_u32() >> 32;
>>
>> reciprocal_divide()
>
> Does reciprocal_divide() make sense without reciprocal_value() from a
> stylish point of view?
No. ;-)
There was already some work, but I didn't have time to finish it:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg249395.html
Maybe it's time that we should revisit that.
> I wouldn't do that just because it expands into the same code.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists