From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62814 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752898AbaFLOjN (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:39:13 -0400 Message-ID: <5399BB92.2070205@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:39:14 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs , Karel Zak Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] btrfs-progs: add mount options to btrfs-mount.5 References: <5398D475.4070309@redhat.com> <5398D4DF.9080508@redhat.com> <20140612105151.GN1903@twin.jikos.cz> In-Reply-To: <20140612105151.GN1903@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 6/12/14, 5:51 AM, David Sterba wrote: > 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. Yeah, that seemed like kind of nasty hard-coding, but I suppose it works for now. I wanted to make it more generic, I didn't have a better idea.. -Eric