On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 04:22:48PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > 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.)
I suspect the fastest way to find out about any existing generator with the desired properties would be to post this one as a patch to the random number infrastructure and read the resulting replies. :) - Josh Triplett -- 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/
