Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 14 Dec 2022 17:53:51 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] Renaming weak prng invocations - prandom_bytes_state, prandom_u32_state |
| |
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:15:49PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:34 PM Stanislaw Gruszka > <stanislaw.gruszka@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 03:35:20PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > Please CC me on future revisions. > > > > > > As of 6.2, the prandom namespace is *only* for predictable randomness. > > > There's no need to rename anything. So nack on this patch 1/5. > > > > It is not obvious (for casual developers like me) that p in prandom > > stands for predictable. Some renaming would be useful IMHO. > > Renaming makes backports more complicated, because stable teams will > have to 'undo' name changes. > Stable teams are already overwhelmed by the amount of backports, and > silly merge conflicts. > > Take another example : > > u64 timecounter_read(struct timecounter *tc) > > You would think this function would read the timecounter, right ? > > Well, it _updates_ many fields from @tc, so a 'better name' would also > be useful.
Right, at some point we become into the world of
#define true 0
because... (read below)
> linux kernel is not for casual readers.
P.S. I believe you applied a common sense and in some cases the renames are necessary.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |