Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:04:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:04:27 -0500 Received: from chac.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.19.54]:63494 "EHLO chac.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:04:12 -0500 Message-Id: <200110282357.f9SNv2kD011923@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl> To: Andreas Dilger , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] random.c bugfix In-Reply-To: Message from Andreas Dilger of "Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:21:42 MDT." <20011027002142.D23590@turbolinux.com> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 20:57:02 -0300 From: Horst von Brand Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andreas Dilger said: [...] > OK, my bad. At least the random variable-name cleanups let you SEE where > we are supposed to be using word sizes and byte sizes. Even you were > confused about it ;-) I have now seen various bits and pieces about this flying around. To get it right will be hard, as over/under estimates will show up only under unusual circumstances; and as you _can't_ really know how much "entropy" there should be, testing this is very hard. So the only way to get it right is make it "obviously" right. How hard would it be to change the API to talk _all_ in the same units, be it bits, bytes, words, or whatever? I believe bits or bytes would be best, as word sizes differ. Bytes have the advantage that a simple sizeof() will give size in bytes for any random variable. -- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - 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/