On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 04:11:37PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:12:19PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Because rcu_torture_random() will be used by the locking equivalent to
> > rcutorture, pull it out into its own module.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> I'd suggest making CONFIG_TORTURE_TEST a completely invisible option,
> with no description; it should only be brought in via "select".
>
> Also, it doesn't need most of the headers it currently includes.
>
> Have you considered moving it into the existing random generation
> infrastructure, as something like "fast_insecure_nonblocking_random"?
> That seems more generally useful.
George Spelvin was also advising me on random-number generation in
rcutorture, so I added him on CC. In any case, I would not be adverse
to using some other random-number service, as long as it is fast enough.
(George suggested some optimizations that I have not yet tried out.)
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
