Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 23:45:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 23:45:47 -0400 Received: from CPE00606767ed59.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([24.112.38.222]:45576 "EHLO cpe00606767ed59.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 23:45:46 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 23:51:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "D. Hugh Redelmeier" Reply-To: "D. Hugh Redelmeier" To: Oliver Xymoron cc: Tommi Kyntola , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] (0/4) Entropy accounting fixes In-Reply-To: <20020820172215.GE19225@waste.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 969 Lines: 26 | From: Oliver Xymoron | Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:22:16 -0500 | On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 07:19:26PM +0300, Tommi Kyntola wrote: | > Does strict gamma assumption | > really lead to so strict figures as you showed in your patch : | > static int benford[16]={0,0,0,1,2,3,4,5,5,6,7,7,8,9,9,10}; | > | > Numbers below 0..7, don't have a single bit of entropy? | | They have fractional bits of entropy. If entropy is added in such small amounts, should the entropy counter be denominated in, say, 1/4 bits? Would this allow the entropy estimate to safely grow significantly faster? Are the estimates accurate enough to justify such precision? Hugh Redelmeier hugh@mimosa.com voice: +1 416 482-8253 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/