From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:23:05 -0700 Message-ID: <49EE00F9.6090000@zytor.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49EDD11E.2030309@tmr.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bill Davidsen Cc: 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 Bill Davidsen wrote: > It would seem that that space could be allocated and populated when > raid6 was first used, as part of the initialization. I haven't looked at > that code since it was new, so I might be optimistic about doing it that > way. We could use vmalloc() and generate the tables at initialization time. However, having a separate module which exports the raid6 declaration and uses the raid5 module as a subroutine library seems easier. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.