Re: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional

[H. Peter Anvin]

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.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/