linux-kernel - Re: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49E98AD2.8060601@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:09:54 +0400
From:	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To:	Prakash Punnoor <prakash@...noor.de>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
	neilb@...e.de
Subject: Re: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional

Prakash Punnoor wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> as I am using only RAID5 I wonder why the RAID6 code also needs to be built.
> Here is a rough patch of making RAID6 optional (but depending on raid456)
> without reording of functions to minimize ifdef scattering.
> (I also haven't checked yet who needs ASYNC_MEMCPY and ASYNC_XOR...)
> It would probably be nicer to make RAID4/5 and RAID6 independently selectable
> of each other. But that requires more refactoring, as I can see.

Hm.  In "old good days" there were 3 independent kernel modules,
named raid4, raid5 and raid6.  Later on, they got merged into one
since they share quite alot of the code, and has only a few specific
parts.  Now you're trying to separate them back somewhat....

What's your goal?  What's the problem you're trying to solve?

/mjt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/