On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 01:06:10PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 11:13:17AM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > Use meta random and bitops to replicate what xt_statistics > > > is doing. > > > > I didn't know about 'meta random', even though it's a bit older than > > numgen. What's the difference to 'numgen random'? > > META_RANDOM is simpler. its really just setting a 32bit register to a > 32bit random value. > > No modulus, offset or anything like that is supported. > > For most users, numgen random is much better because you can generate a > random number within a given range. > > But this translation really does match exactly what xt_statistics is > doing. OK, cool! > > I'm asking because I > > once tried to fix the same issue using the latter[1], it was never > > applied, though. > > > > Maybe you could reuse gcd_div() from my patch to reduce nominal values? > > Why? If you prefer numgen, maybe just rebase your patch and push it out? No, I don't care whether meta or numgen. I just recall some probability/mask values would trim down nicely and make things more readable. Just push your patch please, I'll play with gcd() if time allows. Thanks, Phil
