From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26494 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754091AbaFIOWg (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2014 10:22:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:22:04 +0200 From: Karel Zak To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Eric Sandeen , Gui Hecheng , util-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs Subject: Re: [PATCH] mount: add btrfs to mount.8 Message-ID: <20140609142204.GF30975@x2.net.home> References: <1401933919-23608-1-git-send-email-guihc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20140605080311.GW9000@x2.net.home> <1402036359.17740.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20140606094428.GA30975@x2.net.home> <20140606100302.GB30975@x2.net.home> <5391E3D0.8050608@redhat.com> <20140607134150.GA22076@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20140607134150.GA22076@infradead.org> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 06:41:50AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:52:48AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 6/6/14, 5:03 AM, Karel Zak wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 11:44:28AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote: > > >> I personally have no problem to maintain information about arbitrary > > >> FS in mount.8, the problem are updates. Unfortunately, kernel FS developers > > >> don't care about the man page at all and it's very often not up to date. > > > > > > Hmm.. another possible way would be to create a script for util-linux > > > that will analyze kernel Documentation/filesystems/.txt and > > > report changes that is necessary to make to mount.8. It should be > > > relative simple with git. I'll try it.. > > > > I like that idea. Maybe will need a defined format, though, > > right? Maybe asciidoc? > > > > I've still been meaning (in theory) to produce a mount manpage just for xfs. > > I'm still willing to do that if the above doesn't pan out. I just need > > to get to it. I'd be happy to do it for extN as well. > > Autogenerating man pages from an adhoc format sounds like the wrong > approach. I'd much rather have proper man paged for every filesystem. > With those we could also drop all that information from the kernel > Documentation directory, where users won't looks for them anyway. > > Eric, if you take care of xfs an extN I'll get started on man pages > for the various "minor" filesystems that don't really have active > maintainers. > > Not sure if we should go for mount..8 man pages or just improve > the .5 pages, but I think the second one is more obvious. I think .5 provides opportunity to distribute more information about the filesystem than just mount options only. See for example nfs.5 where is complete overview about the filesystem. Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com