Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Robin Getz <> | Subject | Re: IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM question... | Date | Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:54:54 -0400 |
| |
On Wed 8 Apr 2009 15:51, Matt Mackall pondered: > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 17:44 -0400, Robin Getz wrote: > > Is that "Everything in general, with a few exceptions", or > > "__Everything__"? > > Everything. We want every input point to better document the type of > entropy source.
OK - any objections to something like this?
=================================================================== --- Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt (revision 6236) +++ Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt (working copy) @@ -6,6 +6,19 @@
---------------------------
+What: IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM +Check: IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM +When: July 2009 +Why: Many of IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM users are technically bogus as entropy + sources in the kernel's current entropy model. To resolve this, every + input point to the kernel's entropy pool needs to better document the + type of entropy source it actually is. This will be replaced with + additional add_*_randomness functions in drivers/char/random.c + +Who: Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> & Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> + +--------------------------- +
Then if someone attempts to add it, and runs checkpatch, it will generate something like:
-------- ERROR: Don't use IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM(): see Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt #10: FILE: serial/bfin_5xx.c:650: + if (request_irq(uart->port.irq, bfin_serial_rx_int, IRQF_DISABLED | IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM, -------- My only real question is on the date... In a previous email:
On Mon 6 Apr 2009 15:01, Matt Mackall pondered: > I'm eventually going to move the RNG away from the strict theoretical > entropy accounting model to a more pragmatic one which will be much > happier with iffy entropy sources, but that's a ways off.
I was not sure what "a ways off" was defined as - or are the two (removal of IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM, and the pragmatic entropy accounting model) separate in your mind? I guess various add_*_randomness functions can be added today, and change how they are accounted for in the future?
-Robin
| |