2012/12/25 Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:14:15AM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote: >> Use more preferable function name which implies using a pseudo-random >> number generator. >> >> Signed-off-by: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Jesse Gross <jesse@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Venkat Venkatsubra <venkat.x.venkatsubra@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: linux-sctp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> --- >> include/net/red.h | 2 +- >> net/802/garp.c | 2 +- >> net/openvswitch/actions.c | 2 +- >> net/rds/bind.c | 2 +- >> net/sctp/socket.c | 2 +- >> net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c | 2 +- >> 6 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> > I'm largely indifferent to this patch, but I kind of feel like its just churn. > Whats the real advantage in making this change? I grant that it clearly > indicates the type of random number generator we're using at a given call site, > But for those using net_random, you probably don't care too much about > the source of your random bits. If you did really want true random vs. > pseudo-random data, you need to explicitly use the right call. You're previous > patch series did good cleanup on differentiating the different random calls, but > this just seems like its removing what is otherwise useful indirection. I overlooked the importance of net_random() indirection. Thanks for the feedback. I'll leave all net_random() callers as-is in the next version. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
