Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751445AbdGRIuQ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jul 2017 04:50:16 -0400 Received: from mail.eperm.de ([89.247.134.16]:60642 "EHLO mail.eperm.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751334AbdGRIuN (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jul 2017 04:50:13 -0400 From: Stephan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=FCller?= To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 2/4] random: conditionally compile code depending on LRNG Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:50:10 +0200 Message-ID: <3877747.RUAmeEdMP1@tauon.chronox.de> In-Reply-To: References: <3910055.ntkqcq1Chb@positron.chronox.de> <1590546.5d4hGCCWgT@positron.chronox.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1447 Lines: 44 Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017, 10:47:00 CEST schrieb Arnd Bergmann: Hi Arnd, > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephan M?ller wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017, 10:13:55 CEST schrieb Arnd Bergmann: > >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Stephan M?ller wrote: > >> > When selecting the LRNG for compilation, disable add_disk_randomness > >> > and > >> > its supporting function. > >> > > >> > CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> > CC: Arnd Bergmann > >> > CC: Jason A. Donenfeld > >> > Signed-off-by: Stephan Mueller > >> > >> I think this needs a better explanation. Why do we ignore the extra > >> entropy here? > > > > I was not sure whether to add all the details about the reason into the > > patch submission. > > > > The reason is explained here in [1] page 3 and re-iterated in [2]. > > Ok, got it. A half-sentence summary of that ("... to avoid adding the > same event twice from interrupt and block") would be sufficient for > the patch description, longer is also fine. Perfect, thank you for that hint. I will add this information to a next iteration. > > Generally speaking, each patch description should describe why > that particular patch is required rather than describe what it does > (which in cases like this is plain to see from looking a few lines > down). > > Arnd Ciao Stephan