From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:11:56 -0700 Message-ID: <49EF33BC.6060905@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> <49EE00F9.6090000@zytor.com> <87ljptm59f.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87ljptm59f.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Goswin von Brederlow 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 Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > >> 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 > > Combine the two. > > The raid6 module initializes the tables for raid6 and uses the raid5 > module as subroutine library. > It really doesn't make sense at all. It's easier at that point to retain the static tables. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.