Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes: > There you have it: Look the other way for a while, and people start > using exotic stuff... ;) Is it exotic to have random/srandom? Both are in POSIX and 4BSD; admittedly rand/srand are written down in C89 and later, so they might be more portable, but I recall the prevailing wisdom is to favor random over rand for quality of randomness and portability, so I am wondering if it may be a better approach to keep the code as-is and do a compat/random.c based on either rand/srand (or use posix sample implementation [*1*]). [Reference] *1* http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/rand.html > > This is a build breakage of master on Windows. There are also a few > new test suite failures. On of them is in t1404#2, indicating that > a DF conflict takes a different error path. I haven't debugged, yet. > The lock file retry test fails, too. I'll report back as time permits. > > lockfile.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lockfile.c b/lockfile.c > index 5a93bc7..ee5cb01 100644 > --- a/lockfile.c > +++ b/lockfile.c > @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ static int lock_file_timeout(struct lock_file *lk, const char *path, > return lock_file(lk, path, flags); > > if (!random_initialized) { > - srandom((unsigned int)getpid()); > + srand((unsigned int)getpid()); > random_initialized = 1; > } > > @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ static int lock_file_timeout(struct lock_file *lk, const char *path, > > backoff_ms = multiplier * INITIAL_BACKOFF_MS; > /* back off for between 0.75*backoff_ms and 1.25*backoff_ms */ > - wait_us = (750 + random() % 500) * backoff_ms; > + wait_us = (750 + rand() % 500) * backoff_ms; > sleep_microseconds(wait_us); > remaining_us -= wait_us; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html