From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] enhanced version of net_random()
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:28:57 +0200
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Message-ID: <20040813212857.7dd50320.ak@suse.de>
References: <20040812104835.3b179f5a@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net>
	<20040812124854.646f1936.davem@redhat.com>
	<20040813115140.0f09d889@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: davem@redhat.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, tytso@mit.edu,
        netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        greearb@candelatech.com
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040813115140.0f09d889@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net>
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:51:40 -0700
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org> 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