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?

Bernd