On Sunday 18 November 2007 05:04:01 Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 04:30:40AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> > On a related issue, I think the rng interface is not very suitable
> > for chips like HIFN that have a constant random bandwidth, it would
> > make a lot more sense to
On Sunday 18 November 2007 05:04:01 Herbert Xu wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 04:30:40AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
On a related issue, I think the rng interface is not very suitable
for chips like HIFN that have a constant random bandwidth, it would
make a lot more sense to return the
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 12:04:01PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 04:30:40AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> > On a related issue, I think the rng interface is not very suitable
> > for chips like HIFN that have a constant random bandwidth, it would
> > make a lot more
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 04:30:40AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
> On a related issue, I think the rng interface is not very suitable
> for chips like HIFN that have a constant random bandwidth, it would
> make a lot more sense to return the time to wait to the core, instead
> of waiting 10us in
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 04:30:40AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
On a related issue, I think the rng interface is not very suitable
for chips like HIFN that have a constant random bandwidth, it would
make a lot more sense to return the time to wait to the core, instead
of waiting 10us in all
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 12:04:01PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 04:30:40AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
On a related issue, I think the rng interface is not very suitable
for chips like HIFN that have a constant random bandwidth, it would
make a lot more sense to
6 matches
Mail list logo
