lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Prakash Punnoor wrote:

> On Samstag 18 April 2009 10:09:54 Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > Prakash Punnoor wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > as I am using only RAID5 I wonder why the RAID6 code also needs to be
> > > built. Here is a rough patch of making RAID6 optional (but depending on
> > > raid456) without reording of functions to minimize ifdef scattering.
> > > (I also haven't checked yet who needs ASYNC_MEMCPY and ASYNC_XOR...)
> > > It would probably be nicer to make RAID4/5 and RAID6 independently
> > > selectable of each other. But that requires more refactoring, as I can
> > > see.
> >
> > Hm. In "old good days" there were 3 independent kernel modules,
> > named raid4, raid5 and raid6. Later on, they got merged into one
> > since they share quite alot of the code, and has only a few specific
> > parts. Now you're trying to separate them back somewhat....
> >
> > What's your goal? What's the problem you're trying to solve?
>
> Having duplicate code is not good, of course. But unused code is also not
> good. As I said, I only use RAID5, so I don't need RAID6 support. The RAID6
> support enlarges kernel (the built-in.o in drivers/md grows from 325kb to
> 414kb in my case), making boot time and compile time longer

By a few ms perhaps - nothing that you'd ever notice in real life... A
small price to pay for the shared code. If you were to split them all
again, the combined total size would be greater still.

> - admittedly not
> by a big margin. But then again I could argue: Why not put RAID0,1,10,4,5,6
> into one big module? Makes no sense, huh?

Makes perfect sense to me. Just modprobe raid.o and you have all
raid levels available. That would make a lot of sense.

> For me putting 5 and 6 into one
> monolithic module makes no sense. A proper architecture would be to have some
> common shared code (in a separate module?), not a monolithic big one.
>
That's also a way, and certainly better than just splitting out raid6.

--
Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-18 15:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site