Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:53:53 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 03/03]: hwrng: khwrngd derating per device |
| |
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:41:10AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de> wrote: >> > >> > This patch introduces a derating factor to struct hwrng for >> > the random bits going into the kernel input pool, and a common >> > default derating for drivers which do not specify one. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@suse.de> >> > >> > --- >> > drivers/char/hw_random/core.c | 11 ++++++++++- >> > include/linux/hw_random.h | 3 +++ >> > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > --- linux/include/linux/hw_random.h.orig >> > +++ linux/include/linux/hw_random.h >> > @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ >> > * @read: New API. drivers can fill up to max bytes of data >> > * into the buffer. The buffer is aligned for any type. >> > * @priv: Private data, for use by the RNG driver. >> > + * @derating: Estimation of true entropy in RNG's bitstream >> > + * (per mill). >> >> I'll bikeshed again: this is a rating, not a *de*rating. Higher = >> more confidence, at least assuming the comment is right. >> > You're right. Would anyone object to call it "quality", as in RX signal quality? > In context of a random source that is pretty accurate, I'd say. Other opinions?
I'm okay with "quality", although I'm still partial to "entropy_per_1000bits".
--Andy
| |