>I agree, if we are adding BUFFERCACHE to implement something similar
>to NBUF/BUFPAGES, it will need to be documented to be useful, so why
>not just document NBUF/BUFPAGES?  On the other hand, hard-coding
>the buffer cache can be real a pain when you pull out some RAM and don't
>change the kernel!  (ouch! I've been there)  The ability for it to
>dynamically resize (at boot) is a plus.  Perhaps when the NKPDE
>problem is fixed, something more dynamic will be implemented.

That's one of the points of this patch.  It doesn't hard code a fixed
size for NBUF/BUFPAGES, it codes a percentage of available memory.
So, if you plug it into a smaller machine, you're using the same
percentage, but a smaller total amount of available RAM.  That sounds
failry dynamic to me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Michael L. VanLoon                           michaelv@MindBender.serv.net
        --<  Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x  >--
    NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3,
        Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32...
    NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------