From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Goswin von Brederlow Subject: Re: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:01:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87ljptm59f.fsf@frosties.localdomain> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49EE00F9.6090000@zytor.com> (H. Peter Anvin's message of "Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:23:05 -0700") 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 "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. MfG Goswin