From owner-cvs-all Tue Feb 5 15:11:11 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from nagual.pp.ru (pobrecita.freebsd.ru [194.87.13.42]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0166D37B420; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:11:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.pp.ru (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g15NAs009752; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 02:10:54 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 02:10:51 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" To: Mark Murray Cc: Alfred Perlstein , des@freebsd.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libpam/modules/pam_unix pam_unix.c Message-ID: <20020205231051.GA9710@nagual.pp.ru> References: <20020205215540.GB8579@nagual.pp.ru> <200202052220.g15MKps32595@greenpeace.grondar.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200202052220.g15MKps32595@greenpeace.grondar.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 22:20:46 +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > 2) Have the same speed compared to random() (or even faster) > > It is three times slower, according to a cheap benchmark. Yes, 3-4 times slower, according to my new test I write more accurately. But for non-looped 7 or 14 pam_unix() random() calls it gains _nothing_, they are very fast comparing to even minimal _net_ delay for YP code they needed. BTW, to clarify my position: I not insist on using arc4random(), I insist on removing random(). You can replace arc4random() with any fastest code you wants. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message