From: Chuck Lever Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] NFS: Update help text for CONFIG_NFS_FS Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 13:21:19 -0400 Message-ID: <64E73AAD-3E2E-4C57-B51F-6D060B6890E8@oracle.com> References: <20080518021241.8366.12464.stgit@ellison.1015granger.net> <20080518021614.8366.39102.stgit@ellison.1015granger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "Talpey, Thomas" Return-path: Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]:62596 "EHLO rgminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754594AbYESRVs (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2008 13:21:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On May 19, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Talpey, Thomas wrote: > At 10:16 PM 5/17/2008, Chuck Lever wrote: >> Clean up: refresh the help text for Kconfig items related to the NFS >> client. Remove obsolete URLs, and make the language consistent among >> the options. > > I like the patch for no other reason than (finally) getting rid > of the CODA nasty-gram: > >> - A superior but less widely used alternative to NFS is provided by >> - the Coda file system; see "Coda file system support" below. > > But I do have a comment - I think calling it "Sun's" protocol is > unnecessary. > It's an IETF standard, and widely implemented. I think that's why this patch was originally rejected. Trond didn't like the fact that I said IETF standard, but I don't recall the exact details. >> + Choose Y here if you want to access files residing on other >> + computers using Sun's Network File System protocol. To compile >> + this file system support as a module, choose M here: the module >> + will be called nfs. > > >> config NFS_V3 >> - bool "Provide NFSv3 client support" >> + bool "NFS client support for NFS version 3" > > The new option says NFS twice. Yes, but I think it makes the description more precise. It could say "NFS client support for version 3" or "Client support for NFS version 3". I think both of those choices are ambiguous in one way or another. >> config NFS_V4 >> - bool "Provide NFSv4 client support (EXPERIMENTAL)" >> + bool "NFS client support for NFS version 4 (EXPERIMENTAL)" >> depends on NFS_FS && EXPERIMENTAL > > Is it necessary to say "(EXPERIMENTAL)"? There are many other kernel > options that don't, but in fact are dependent. It's usually good to mark these as experimental, and it has been convention for a long while, but I don't see a requirement for it. -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com