From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:51157 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755215AbaFLKvx (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2014 06:51:53 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:51:51 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Eric Sandeen Cc: linux-btrfs , Karel Zak Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] btrfs-progs: add mount options to btrfs-mount.5 Message-ID: <20140612105151.GN1903@twin.jikos.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <5398D475.4070309@redhat.com> <5398D4DF.9080508@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <5398D4DF.9080508@redhat.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:14:55PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > This is a straight cut and paste from the util-linux > mount manpage into btrfs-mount.5 > > It's pretty much impossible for util-linux to keep up > with every filesystem out there, and Karel has more than > once expressed a wish that mount options move into fs-specific > manpages. > > So, here we go. > > The way btrfs asciidoc is generated, there's not a trivial > way to have both btrfs(5) and btrfs(8) so I named it btrfs-mount(5) > for now. A bit ick and I'm open to suggestions. So what if the mount options are generated from btrfs-mount.txt but installed under btrfs.5.gz name? If there are more section 5 manpages we can make it more generic but for now hardcoding btrfs-mount.* -> btrfs.5. sounds ok to me.