Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Fri, 13 May 2022 12:21:34 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
To:     Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] random: move initialization out of reseeding hot path
Message-ID: <Yn4xLowv+farg814@zx2c4.com>
References: <20220509121409.529788-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <20220509121409.529788-2-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <Yn35k+yyrvgAt3tb@owl.dominikbrodowski.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yn35k+yyrvgAt3tb@owl.dominikbrodowski.net>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Dominik,

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 08:24:19AM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > -	if (!crng_ready()) {
> > -		crng_init = CRNG_READY;
> > -		finalize_init = true;
> > -	}
> > +	crng_init = CRNG_READY;
> 
> Why unconditionally

To avoid a useless branch.


> (you revert that bit in the static branch patch and make
> it conditional again; so I see no reason for that here)?

With the static branch patch, I can totally remove the branch and the
store all together, so we get the best of both worlds.

Jason