On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 07:05:48AM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 6:47 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 11:48:42PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: ... > > > - u32 isn = (prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1; > > > + u32 isn = (get_random_u32() & ~7UL) - 1; > > > > Maybe this wants to be written as > > > > (prandom_max(U32_MAX >> 7) << 7) | 7 > > ? > > Holy smokes. Yea I guess maybe? It doesn't exactly gain anything or > make the code clearer though, and is a little bit more magical than > I'd like on a first pass. Shouldn't the two first 7s to be 3s? ... > > > - psn = prandom_u32() & 0xffffff; > > > + psn = get_random_u32() & 0xffffff; > > > > prandom_max(0xffffff + 1) > > That'd work, but again it's not more clear. Authors here are going for > a 24-bit number, and masking seems like a clear way to express that. We have some 24-bit APIs (and 48-bit) already in kernel, why not to have get_random_u24() ? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
