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 20:57:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20090422185703.GF13280@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> <49EF6457.90505@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OzxllxdKGCiKxUZM" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49EF6457.90505@zytor.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: 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 --OzxllxdKGCiKxUZM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11:39, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Yes, I believe it would be easier than having dynamically allocated=20 > arrays. Dynamically generated arrays using static memory allocations=20 > (bss) is one thing, but that would only reduce size of the module on=20 > disk, which I don't think anyone considers a problem. We would save 64K of RAM in the raid5-only case if we'd defer the allocation of the multiplication table until the first raid6 array is about to be started. Andre --=20 The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe --OzxllxdKGCiKxUZM 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) iD8DBQFJ72h/Wto1QDEAkw8RAr8pAJ4yz2/mn1Dv+c8mTYTOGvXtanDCLwCeJv4t dPX7eZLkM40f+U7/HokpY/M= =9it3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OzxllxdKGCiKxUZM--