Subject: Re: BUFFERCACHE, PR 1903 To: Michael L. VanLoon -- <>
From: Chris G Demetriou <> List: current-users Date: 09/14/1996
00:13:08 > >     (4) it's annoying to no longer be able to have
the "N percent > >         of the first M megs, P percent of the
rest" function, > >         to better support small-memory
systems. > There's no reason you couldn't default back to this
if BUFCACHE (or > whatever) wasn't defined.  Say, for GENERIC
kernels.  So, that means that the diffs are machine-dependent,
and there's a question about whether or not what the patch does
is 'right'...  that means that somebody's gotta take the time to
figure out 'the right  My thoughts on the matter:  If you're
tailoring a kernel to a specific system, and that's why you want
to use "options BUFCACHE", why not just wire a certain number of
buffers/pages via NBUF/BUFPAGES?  (how often does your memory
size change?  since they're patchable, you don't have to build a
new kernel, even...)  If you're trying to use a consistent
kernel throughout a given e