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/
