where are the patches ? On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 11:30 +0200, Andre Noll wrote: > As mentioned by Neil, the raid0 hash table code does probably not > add any value. Moreover, it contains some rather strange sector_t > manipulations which are needed to setup and maintain the table. > > This patch series against Neil's for-next tree as of yesterday removes > the hash table from the raid0 code. > > Patch #1 replaces the hash table lookup by a simple function that > loops over all strip zones to find the zone that holds a given sector. > This change allows to get rid of the hash table itself (patch #2) > and of related fields of struct raid0_private_data (patch #3). > > Patch #4 makes raid0 return a proper error code rather than -ENOMEM > in case the array could not be started for reasons other than memory > shortage. > > The remaining two patches are simple cleanups that further simplify > the raid0 code a bit. > > The patched kernel has been tested with a smallish raid0 array > consisting of five devices of varying sizes (created and filled with > contents by an unpatched kernel) and seems to work just fine. It > passes the raid0 tests of the mdadm test suite. > > Please consider for inclusion. > > drivers/md/raid0.c | 150 ++++++++++++++-------------------------------------- > drivers/md/raid0.h | 4 -- > 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 115 deletions(-) > > Thanks > Andre -- 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
