On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 08:53:00AM +0100, Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 06:28:20PM -0600, David Young wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 02:25:19PM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> [..]
> 
> > > I totally support yamt's patch ... mandating -s is a reasonable  
> > > solution.
> > 
> > I don't see why a solution cannot satisfy everyone by giving us the
> > choice:
> > 
> >         1 Set no size: the tmpfs will grow without bound, reclaiming
> >           memory from file cache to fulfill tmpfs demand.
> >         2 Set a size with -s in terms of a percentage of RAM.
> >         3 Set a size with -s in terms of blocks, megabytes, ....
> > 
> > I prefer #1.  Dan Carosone sent me a patch for #1 that beautifully solves
> > the problem that began this discussion.  I would like to see it committed.
> 
> Would it still be possible to use -s after you commited the patch?

Yes.

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung@ojctech.com      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933