Index: clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-replace-random-shuffle.rst
===================================================================
--- clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-replace-random-shuffle.rst
+++ clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-replace-random-shuffle.rst
@@ -26,3 +26,16 @@
 The second example will also receive a warning that ``randomFunc`` is no longer supported in the same way as before so if the user wants the same functionality, the user will need to change the implementation of the ``randomFunc``.
 
 One thing to be aware of here is that ``std::random_device`` is quite expensive to initialize. So if you are using the code in a performance critical place, you probably want to initialize it elsewhere. 
+Another thing is that the seeding quality of the suggested fix is quite poor: ``std::mt19937`` has an internal state of 624 32-bit integers, but is only seeded with a single integer. So if you require
+higher quality randomness, you should consider seeding better, for example:
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+  std::shuffle(v.begin(), v.end(), []() {
+    std::mt19937::result_type seeds[std::mt19937::state_size];
+    std::random_device device;
+    std::uniform_int_distribution<typename std::mt19937::result_type> dist;
+    std::generate(std::begin(seeds), std::end(seeds), [&] { return dist(device); });
+    std::seed_seq seq(std::begin(seeds), std::end(seeds));
+    return std::mt19937(seq);
+  }());