On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:49:00PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote:
> > If there are other changes to the relevant lines from the networking
> > tree, sure.
>
> This patch set has *nothing* to do with the networking tree. That just
> a topic confusion. There shouldn't be more discussion about
> networking, because it doesn't make sense in any way at all.
Well, the reason people do is for hysterical... er, historical
reasons. *Originaly* get_random_int() was introduced for use by the
networking folks, and some people think that get_random_int()
therefore "belongs" to the networking tree, even though there are
other users of get_random_int() and get_random_long() besides the
networking code.
I'd much rather break this obviously historical connection, but
patching people's wetware is a lot harder than getting a patch into
the kernel tree....
- Ted
