Re: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional

H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-23T01:36:28Z

Andre Noll wrote:
> On 11:39, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Yes, I believe it would be easier than having dynamically allocated
>> arrays. Dynamically generated arrays using static memory allocations
>> (bss) is one thing, but that would only reduce size of the module on
>> 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.

Yes, and we'd have to access it through a pointer for the rest of eternity.

-hpa

--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.