From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: [PATCH] mdadm 2.5 (Was: ANNOUNCE: mdadm 2.5 - A tool for managing Soft RAID under Linux) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 19:48:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20060528174826.GK8203@percy.comedia.it> References: <17526.41252.855793.479011@cse.unsw.edu.au> <20060528133203.GC8203@percy.comedia.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: dean gaudet Cc: Neil Brown , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 10:08:19AM -0700, dean gaudet wrote: >On Sun, 28 May 2006, Luca Berra wrote: > >> - mdadm-2.5-rand.patch >> Posix dictates rand() versus bsd random() function, and dietlibc >> deprecated random(), so switch to srand()/rand() and make everybody >> happy. > >fwiw... lots of rand()s tend to suck... and RAND_MAX may not be large >enough for this use. glibc rand() is the same as random(). do you know the fact that glibc rand() is the same implementation as random() was one of the reason i believe we could switch to rand() >if dietlibc's rand() is good enough? dietlibc rand() and random() are the same function. but random will throw a warning saying it is deprecated. L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \