From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andre Noll Subject: Re: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:50:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20090422185007.GE13280@skl-net.de> References: <200904180946.27722.prakash@punnoor.de> <49E98AD2.8060601@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <200904181117.03418.prakash@punnoor.de> <20090418145850.GD28512@mea-ext.zmailer.org> <49EDD11E.2030309@tmr.com> <49EE00F9.6090000@zytor.com> <20090422180051.GD13280@skl-net.de> <87vdowlevi.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Lb0e7rgc7IsuDeGj" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87vdowlevi.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Goswin von Brederlow Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Bill Davidsen , Matti Aarnio , Jesper Juhl , Prakash Punnoor , Michael Tokarev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Lb0e7rgc7IsuDeGj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 20:31, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Really? Easier than keeping only two 256-byte arrays for exp() and > > log() and use these at runtime to populate the (dynamically allocated) > > 64K GF multiplication table? That seems to be really simple and would > > still shave off 64K of kernel memory for raid5-only users. > > > > Andre >=20 > Oh, you mean when the first raid6 device is started and not when the > module is loaded. Yes, that's what I was trying to say. Andre --=20 The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe --Lb0e7rgc7IsuDeGj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJ72bfWto1QDEAkw8RAjbqAJ98LnuA3C5ltc+rq34W/eLSCUTiSACgiuYj Il/XAF5dCal5wiQGoN/ElwI= =TuCF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Lb0e7rgc7IsuDeGj--