On Wednesday June 17, john.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, June 17, 2009 12:55 pm, Neil Brown wrote: > > The more I think about it, the more I feel I would prefer to use the > > raid5 module for all restriping. > > That doesn't make sense to me, for various reasons including those for > having separate RAID personality modules in the first place. On the other > hand, if you're keeping the raid0 module simple, perhaps the raid5 module > could also be simplified and all objectives could be served by shipping > out all restriping to a new, separate restriping module? Or even to > userspace? The enhancements needed to raid5 to make is able to handle reshaping a raid0 are either minor, or are ones that we want eventually any way. Given that, there seems little point implementing the same thing in two different ways. I have occasionally thought that it would be nice if all the "Reshape" code could be separated out of raid5 as it is not used very often. However I suspect that you would find that it isn't very much code as it shares a lot with resync and normal raid5 processing. Striping it out into user-space is also tempting. The tricky bit would be deciding on the interface - exactly how much to leave in the kernel and how much to takeout. It might be an interesting exercise. It's hard to know if it would be productive or not. NeilBrown -- 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
