From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tokarev Subject: Re: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:09:54 +0400 Message-ID: <49E98AD2.8060601@msgid.tls.msk.ru> References: <200904180946.27722.prakash@punnoor.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200904180946.27722.prakash@punnoor.de> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Prakash Punnoor Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de List-Id: linux-raid.ids Prakash Punnoor wrote: > Hi, > > as I am using only RAID5 I wonder why the RAID6 code also needs to be built. > Here is a rough patch of making RAID6 optional (but depending on raid456) > without reording of functions to minimize ifdef scattering. > (I also haven't checked yet who needs ASYNC_MEMCPY and ASYNC_XOR...) > It would probably be nicer to make RAID4/5 and RAID6 independently selectable > of each other. But that requires more refactoring, as I can see. Hm. In "old good days" there were 3 independent kernel modules, named raid4, raid5 and raid6. Later on, they got merged into one since they share quite alot of the code, and has only a few specific parts. Now you're trying to separate them back somewhat.... What's your goal? What's the problem you're trying to solve? /mjt