Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:22:50 -0700 From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> To: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compatibility options for mount(8) Message-ID: <201307111722.r6BHMohd099772@chez.mckusick.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOfDtXM320Ca2vJ0tD7d8Oi1DWCDSwDXheeJSeuULQ_Gboia6g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201307111722.r6BHMohd099772>