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. Andre -- The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
