Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:50:53 -0500
> Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 05:08:26PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
(...)
>> > Yes, I think that's a big step in the right direction!
(...)
>> Andrew, want to throw that in the -mm pile for a wh
Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Andrew, want to throw that in the -mm pile for a while?
>
> Did that, renamed to "via-rng: enable secondary noise source on CPUs where
> it is present".
>
> Has anyone tested it?
I hope so; I did not yet get that far since the patche does not compile
on 2.6.23.8. I was as
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:50:53 -0500
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 05:08:26PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
> > Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:02:39PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
> > >
> > > > I did not know we are already that far
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
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 05:08:26PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:02:39PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
> >
> > > I did not know we are already that far ;-)
> > > I mean: can this patch be aplied without hurting C3/C7 CPU's with just
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:02:39PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
>
> > I did not know we are already that far ;-)
> > I mean: can this patch be aplied without hurting C3/C7 CPU's with just
> > one RNG? Maybe an expert needs to test/answer?
> > Maybe some logic needs to b
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:02:39PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
> I did not know we are already that far ;-)
> I mean: can this patch be aplied without hurting C3/C7 CPU's with just
> one RNG? Maybe an expert needs to test/answer?
> Maybe some logic needs to be applied around the extra bit
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:49:08 +0100 Udo van den Heuvel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Any reason why the second rng on the VIA C7 CPU is not enabled?
(...)
> Does the patch work?
Yes, at least:
dd if=/dev/hwrng of=/dev/null bs=1024 count=1024
shows a higher speed than w
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:49:08 +0100 Udo van den Heuvel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any reason why the second rng on the VIA C7 CPU is not enabled?
>
> Kind regards,
> Udo
>
>
> [via-rng.patch text/plain (634B)]
> --- old/drivers/char/hw_random/via-rng.c 2007-11-11 19:39:49.0
> +0
Hello,
Any reason why the second rng on the VIA C7 CPU is not enabled?
Kind regards,
Udo
--- old/drivers/char/hw_random/via-rng.c2007-11-11 19:39:49.0
+0100
+++ new/drivers/char/hw_random/via-rng.c2007-11-11 19:40:41.0
+0100
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
VIA_STRFILT_
10 matches
Mail list logo