>Um, something that no one has directly mentioned:
>
>If you were to go so far as to change random() to use rnd(), you'd be
>breaking a documented characteristic, wouldn't you?  I.e., the ability to
>reseed random(), as with rand(), to reliably reproduce a sequence.
>
>``True'' randomness may sometimes be desirable (as I gather is the intent
>rnd()'s entropy collection).  But, simulations, for example, need to be
>able to regenerate the same sequence on-demand.  (E.g., for testing.)

	i don't intend to change behavior of random(3) - for userland.
	i'm just talking about changing behavior of random(9) - for kernel.
	there will be no impact to the behavior of userland random(3).

	there's no srandom() in the kernel, so at this moment there's no
	way for us to get known sequence of (pseudo-)random bytes out of
	kernel random(9).

itojun