On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Mark Murray wrote:
> > When you say rewriting, do you mean syncing with the version of the code
> > in Linux (1.04, instead of our 0.95) or actually rewriting? If the latter,
> > I'm curious as to what your aims are.
>
> I want to implement Bruce Schneier's Yarrow.
Ah - I ha
> When you say rewriting, do you mean syncing with the version of the code
> in Linux (1.04, instead of our 0.95) or actually rewriting? If the latter,
> I'm curious as to what your aims are.
I want to implement Bruce Schneier's Yarrow.
M
--
Mark Murray
Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cau
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Mark Murray wrote:
> > >What is needed to make this support a more sensible number of IRQs?
> >
> > Mainly changing the ioctl and its clients (rndcontrol only?) to supply
> > more bits.
>
> I am currently rewriting /dev/random (and rndcontrol).
When you say rewriting, do yo
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Mark Murray wrote:
> > When you say rewriting, do you mean syncing with the version of the code
> > in Linux (1.04, instead of our 0.95) or actually rewriting? If the latter,
> > I'm curious as to what your aims are.
>
> I want to implement Bruce Schneier's Yarrow.
Ah - I h
> When you say rewriting, do you mean syncing with the version of the code
> in Linux (1.04, instead of our 0.95) or actually rewriting? If the latter,
> I'm curious as to what your aims are.
I want to implement Bruce Schneier's Yarrow.
M
--
Mark Murray
Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.ca
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Mark Murray wrote:
> > >What is needed to make this support a more sensible number of IRQs?
> >
> > Mainly changing the ioctl and its clients (rndcontrol only?) to supply
> > more bits.
>
> I am currently rewriting /dev/random (and rndcontrol).
When you say rewriting, do y
> >What is needed to make this support a more sensible number of IRQs?
>
> Mainly changing the ioctl and its clients (rndcontrol only?) to supply
> more bits.
I am currently rewriting /dev/random (and rndcontrol).
M
--
Mark Murray
Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org
To Unsubscrib
> >What is needed to make this support a more sensible number of IRQs?
>
> Mainly changing the ioctl and its clients (rndcontrol only?) to supply
> more bits.
I am currently rewriting /dev/random (and rndcontrol).
M
--
Mark Murray
Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org
To Unsubscri
>/*
> * XXX the data is 16-bit due to a historical botch, so we use
> * magic 16's instead of ICU_LEN and can't support 24 interrupts
> * under SMP.
> */
>intr = *(int16_t *)data;
>if (cmd != MEM_RETURNIRQ && (intr < 0 || intr >= 16))
>
>/*
> * XXX the data is 16-bit due to a historical botch, so we use
> * magic 16's instead of ICU_LEN and can't support 24 interrupts
> * under SMP.
> */
>intr = *(int16_t *)data;
>if (cmd != MEM_RETURNIRQ && (intr < 0 || intr >= 16))
>
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> ! warn("");
That should (probably) be `warn(NULL);', otherwise you'd get something
like `rndcontrol: : error' rather than the (probably) desired
`rndcontrol: error'. (Or so my simple test showed, at least...)
--
Ben Smithurst| P
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ! warn("");
That should (probably) be `warn(NULL);', otherwise you'd get something
like `rndcontrol: : error' rather than the (probably) desired
`rndcontrol: error'. (Or so my simple test showed, at least...)
--
Ben Smithurst|
rndcontrol doesn't work very well for SMP systems. I have a system here
with IRQs 16 and 18 for Ethernet and SCSI:
fxp0: rev 0x05 int a irq 18 on
pci0.10.0
ahc0: rev 0x00 int a irq 16 on pci0.12.0
and I'd like to use these with rndcontrol. However, the ioctl chokes on
IRQ >= 16. From i386/i386
rndcontrol doesn't work very well for SMP systems. I have a system here
with IRQs 16 and 18 for Ethernet and SCSI:
fxp0: rev 0x05 int a irq 18 on pci0.10.0
ahc0: rev 0x00 int a irq 16 on pci0.12.0
and I'd like to use these with rndcontrol. However, the ioctl chokes on
IRQ >= 16. From i386/i386
14 matches
Mail list logo
