Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:11:56 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional |
| |
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> 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.
| |