On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Ben Harris wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, David Brownlee wrote:
>
> > 	It would probably make sense to have another option to swapctl
> > 	that would fail silently if the specified files were not found.
> >
> > 	swap1 would set the option, swap2 would not. That would allow
> > 	the right thing to happen on diskless boxes, plus also allow
> > 	people to put swap on 'noncritical' filesystems. Any thoughts
> > 	for what letter to use? :)
>
> I'll have a "q" please, Bob.
>
> Then swap1 should do:
>
> swapctl -A -t blk
> swapctl -A -t noblk -q
>
> and swap2 would stay as-is.

	What about just 'swapctl -A -q' in swap1 - that would allow you to
	have swap on blk filesystems that get mounted later and picked up
	by swap2?

-- 
		David/absolute		-- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --