swap-on-raidframe vs raidctl -P

[der Mouse <mouse%Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA@localhost>]

I've just set up a 4.0 machine at work.  It's using raidframe for
everything (well, not quite; there's a tiny boot partition that's not
formally raided, though it is mirrored another way), and I saw a
problem.

Swap is on raid0b, and, when raidframeparity ran, it complained that
raid0 parity was dirty and started a parity rewrite.  This is hardly a
catastrophe; the rewrite finishes fast enough that it's not a huge
problem.  But it seems to me that this is suboptimal.

I see two possible fixes.

One would be a way to configure raidframe for uses (like swap) that
don't care about data preservation when the partition is not in use;
parity rewrite at boot would be dummied out for such partitions.  (Only
at boot; if a member fails and is replaced, the resulting rewrite
should not be dummied out, at least not for blocks that have been
written since boot - and keeping track of which blocks that is would be
expensive enough that I'd be inclined to say it shouldn't be done.)

The other would be to run raidframeparity earlier, before swap is
started.

It seems to me that each should actually be done, independent of the
other, but either one would be good enough for my purposes.  The former
would be more intrusive as far as raidframe is concerned; I'm not sure
the latter is possible, since I don't have my head around why it's run
where it is now (rather than as part of raidframe).

Comments?

/~\ The ASCII                           der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML               mouse%rodents.montreal.qc.ca@localhost
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B