From owner-freebsd-doc Sat Aug 26 5:20:13 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C6637B43C for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 05:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id FAA04845; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 05:20:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 05:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200008261220.FAA04845@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Cc: From: Sheldon Hearn Subject: Re: docs/20814: mount opt "intr" for nfs mounts undocumented in fstab.5 Reply-To: Sheldon Hearn Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR docs/20814; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Sheldon Hearn To: bmah@cisco.com Cc: bmah@freebsd.org, freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/20814: mount opt "intr" for nfs mounts undocumented in fstab.5 Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:15:06 +0200 On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:53:37 MST, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > After reading this (and the mount(8) manpage) very carefully, I've come > to realize that actually specifying "intr" in fstab is in fact *wrong*. > Instead, one should use the "dashed" option, e.g.: > > server:/remote/fs /local/fs nfs ro,-i 0 0 Why's it wrong? What negative impact does it have? And what difference does it make whether one uses intr or -i, given that neither one is a standard mount(8) option. :-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message