From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 11 17:22:54 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86B1343;
 Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:22:54 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from mckusick@mckusick.com)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (chez.mckusick.com
 [IPv6:2001:5a8:4:7e72:4a5b:39ff:fe12:452])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA591B46;
 Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:22:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by chez.mckusick.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r6BHMohd099772;
 Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
 (envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com)
Message-Id: <201307111722.r6BHMohd099772@chez.mckusick.com>
To: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Compatibility options for mount(8) 
In-reply-to: <CAOfDtXM320Ca2vJ0tD7d8Oi1DWCDSwDXheeJSeuULQ_Gboia6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:22:50 -0700
From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:22:54 -0000

> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:24:36 +0200
> Subject: Re: Compatibility options for mount(8)
> From: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org>
> To: Jaakko Heinonen <jh@freebsd.org>
> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
> 
> 2013/7/10 Jaakko Heinonen <jh@freebsd.org>:
>> I am not sure if mount(8) is the right place for the translation. This
>> seems to be the first string option translated by mount(8). The "rdonly"
>> compatibility option is translated to "ro" in kernel. Looks inconsistent
>> to me.
> 
> Makes sense...
> 
> I can look this part up later. For now, how about only adding -n? Is
> everyone fine with that?
> 
> See attachment.

I am fine with your proposed addition. I would favor changing the
manual page from

+For compatibility with some other implementations; this flag is

to

+For compatibility with some Linux implementations; this flag is

as it is (primarily) Linux compatibility and also reflects the comment
that you have added in the code.

	Kirk McKusick