--HHCbY6NP+6ACWQad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 02:05:33AM -0600, David Young wrote:
> > >         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, ....
> > >=20
> > > I prefer #1.  Dan Carosone sent me a patch for #1 that beautifully so=
lves
> > > the problem that began this discussion.  I would like to see it commi=
tted.

So would I, but there were objections from several folks with valued
opinions.  Are those objections still held?

I would at the least like to commit the part that reproduces the
existing calculation more efficiently.

> > Would it still be possible to use -s after you commited the patch?
>=20
> Yes.

Yes, my change doesn't affect the -s limit at all, just the free space
reporting (whether capped at such a limit or not).

--
Dan.

--HHCbY6NP+6ACWQad
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFDig4PEAVxvV4N66cRAu8uAKC11KmDm/Xa0u38ibeWNhr26VVtzwCfWccu
NnVf/Xczb+R4JGbe6nuZpRo=
=y4Eb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--HHCbY6NP+6ACWQad--