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?
