2012/10/31 Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu>: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 08:12:39PM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote: >> >> >> >> How about prandom32_get_bytes_state() and prandom32_get_bytes() instead? >> > >> > I agree with your suggestion. I'll rename them and try again. >> > >> > By the way, should we also rename the existing random32() and >> > prandom32() in the future? > > I suppose the other way to go is to just use random32 as the common > prefix, and just have random32() and random32_state(). My concern was > that people might assume that prandom32() and random32() might imply > that only prandom32() was the one using a pseudo-random number > generator. This might be easier since there are large number of uses > of random32() in the source tree, but only a relative few using > prandom32().
Using random32 as the common prefix sounds good idea. I'm going to prepare the following patch set: [patch 1] rename prandom32 to randome32_state [patch 2] introduce random32_get_bytes and random32_get_bytes_state [patch 3-] proliferate random32_get_bytes and random32_get_bytes_state -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/