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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <49EFC5DD.9090201@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:35:25 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andre Noll <maan@...temlinux.org>
CC:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
	Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@...iler.org>,
	Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
	Prakash Punnoor <prakash@...noor.de>,
	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, neilb@...e.de
Subject: Re: Proposal: make RAID6 code optional

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-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/