Dave Jones wrote:
> > > Something like this perhaps ?
> >
> > Yes, I think that's a big step in the right direction!
> >
> > But I am no expert and cannot really judge how necessary or correct the
> > implementation is w.r.t. the 'undefined' function bits for CPU's that
> > lack a certain feature.
>
> The checks at the end of the patch for the x86_mask/model ensure
> we only enable the 2nd noise source on CPUs documented to have it,
> so we should be safe.
>
> Andrew, want to throw that in the -mm pile for a while?
Thanks for assuring we are 'safe'.
Sounds OK to me.
Thanks for picking up this tiny improvement.
Any ideas on the power consumption increase question I received w.r.t.
this patch? (or why VIA would have made the 2nd RNG switchable)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
