Hello Rene , All , How about just printing the algorithm that is chosen & not the others ? Just an idea . JimL On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rene Rebe wrote: > Hi. > In the case s.o. wants to pull the patch: > http://www.rocklinux.org/sources/package/base/linux24/82-raid5-niceer-output.patch > It is only a one-liner. It is not really nice since I print the > "writing arround L2 cache" text when XOR_SELECT_TEMPLATE is defined - > this might also be the case for an later AlitVec version for PowerPC > or so. So we might want a more generic text - or a text in the > appropriated .h file whetre XOR_SELECT_TEMPLATE is defined ... -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | P.O. Box 854 | Give me Linux | | babydr _at_ baby-dragons.com | Coudersport PA 16915 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups: References:
- Re: choice of raid5 checksumming algorithm wrong ?Lionel Bouton
- Re: choice of raid5 checksumming algorithm wrong ?Rene Rebe
- Re: choice of raid5 checksumming algorithm wrong ?Soeren Sonnenburg
- Re: choice of raid5 checksumming algorithm wrong ?Rene Rebe
- Prev by Date: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
- Next by Date: Re: [BK/PATCH] better i386 compiler flags
- Previous by thread: Re: choice of raid5 checksumming algorithm wrong ?
- Next by thread: Re: choice of raid5 checksumming algorithm wrong ?
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]