From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Mar  7 13:37:01 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2CC4E99;
 Fri,  7 Mar 2014 13:37:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9534DF9B;
 Fri,  7 Mar 2014 13:37:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from c-24-8-230-52.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.230.52]
 helo=damnhippie.dyndns.org)
 by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
 (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ian@FreeBSD.org>)
 id 1WLuxQ-00026e-3e; Fri, 07 Mar 2014 13:37:00 +0000
Received: from [172.22.42.240] (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240])
 by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s27DauOA052131;
 Fri, 7 Mar 2014 06:36:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ian@FreeBSD.org)
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Originating-IP: 24.8.230.52
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
 http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse
 reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19mnmnJIAT0VsBzl0Q+d/i3
Subject: Re: Teach mdmfs about tmpfs and use tmpfs in rc scripts
From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org>
To: Jia-Shiun Li <jiashiun@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHNYxxNSjNMg8hMGL2d+223P6gwFJUU+dxnbqcz08SR5A-JDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1394148413.1149.348.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
 <CAHNYxxNSjNMg8hMGL2d+223P6gwFJUU+dxnbqcz08SR5A-JDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 06:36:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1394199416.1149.367.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation."
 <freebsd-rc.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-rc>,
 <mailto:freebsd-rc-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-rc/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-rc@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-rc-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-rc>,
 <mailto:freebsd-rc-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 13:37:01 -0000

On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 12:52 +0800, Jia-Shiun Li wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> 
> Is it ok to default mdmfs to tmpfs behavior? Not sure if anyone would
> like to have explicit allocation e.g. failing early on insufficient memory,
> rather than failing on write. If so then at least 'md' should be in the
> options in addition to 'auto' and 'tmpfs' when both md and tmpfs are
> available from kernel.
> 

I'm not sure what you mean.  If the device on the command line is md the
program behaves as it always has.  If you ask for 'auto' you get the
"best" memory filesystem available for some definition of "best".  If
you don't trust someone else's definition of best (like you need failure
at allocation time) then you choose the one that behaves the way you
like.

-- Ian