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-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
