On Mon, Mar 27 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:53:25AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: >> >> I had the same concern when I looked at this patch firstly. The number for >> raid1/10 doesn't need to be the same. But if we don't move the number to a >> generic header, the third patch will become a little more complicated. I >> eventually ignored this issue. If we really need different number for raid1/10, >> lets do it at that time. > > Which brings up my usual queastion: Is is really that benefitical for > us to keep the raid1.c code around instead of making it a special short > cut case in raid10.c? Patches welcome. They would need to handle write-mostly and write-behind. They would also need to avoid the assumption of a chunk size for RAID1. Undoubtedly do-able. Hard to say how beneficial it would be, or how much it would cost. NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
