Hello list.
Here is a first patch trying to update a little bit nfs-utils
documentation. I'd like also to change the constant opposition of 'nfs'
vs 'nfs4' filesystems in this man page, but I have no clue if the plan
is to remove 'nfs4' filesystem completly, or to keep for compatibility
purpose. In the first case, I'd just remove any occurence of it in the
man page, in the second case, I'm less sure about what to do.
Also, I really think NEWS and ChangeLOG files should be either dropped,
or merged and updated.
--
BOFH excuse #295:
The Token fell out of the ring. Call us when you find it.
Le 17/08/2010 23:49, Steve Dickson a ?crit :
>
>
> On 08/14/2010 10:53 AM, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
>> Hello list.
>>
>> Here is a first patch trying to update a little bit nfs-utils
>> documentation. I'd like also to change the constant opposition of 'nfs'
>> vs 'nfs4' filesystems in this man page, but I have no clue if the plan
>> is to remove 'nfs4' filesystem completly, or to keep for compatibility
>> purpose. In the first case, I'd just remove any occurence of it in the
>> man page, in the second case, I'm less sure about what to do.
> In the future please use the proper Signed-off-by: line in
> your patch... Its cool for this time, since the change is a
> minor one...
Here is a now one, dealing with protocol-specific versions. This time I
found how to add the signoff header in git documentation :)
BTW, I don't what what's the exact plan for the 'nfs4' filesystem type,
so I just mentionned it as an old syntax. And I also supposed than
protocol-specific versions would just get ignored when used with another
version, but I'm not sure at all.
--
BOFH excuse #375:
Root name servers corrupted.
On 08/14/2010 10:53 AM, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> Hello list.
>
> Here is a first patch trying to update a little bit nfs-utils
> documentation. I'd like also to change the constant opposition of 'nfs'
> vs 'nfs4' filesystems in this man page, but I have no clue if the plan
> is to remove 'nfs4' filesystem completly, or to keep for compatibility
> purpose. In the first case, I'd just remove any occurence of it in the
> man page, in the second case, I'm less sure about what to do.
In the future please use the proper Signed-off-by: line in
your patch... Its cool for this time, since the change is a
minor one...
>
> Also, I really think NEWS and ChangeLOG files should be either dropped,
> or merged and updated.
I believe those are needed for all the autoconf scripts we have...
but, in my copious spare time ;-) , I'll take a look at them..
steved.
On Aug 28, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> Le 17/08/2010 23:49, Steve Dickson a ?crit :
>>
>>
>> On 08/14/2010 10:53 AM, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
>>> Hello list.
>>>
>>> Here is a first patch trying to update a little bit nfs-utils
>>> documentation. I'd like also to change the constant opposition of 'nfs'
>>> vs 'nfs4' filesystems in this man page, but I have no clue if the plan
>>> is to remove 'nfs4' filesystem completly, or to keep for compatibility
>>> purpose. In the first case, I'd just remove any occurence of it in the
>>> man page, in the second case, I'm less sure about what to do.
>> In the future please use the proper Signed-off-by: line in
>> your patch... Its cool for this time, since the change is a
>> minor one...
> Here is a now one, dealing with protocol-specific versions. This time I
> found how to add the signoff header in git documentation :)
>
> BTW, I don't what what's the exact plan for the 'nfs4' filesystem type,
> so I just mentionned it as an old syntax. And I also supposed than
> protocol-specific versions would just get ignored when used with another
> version, but I'm not sure at all.
> --
> BOFH excuse #375:
>
> Root name servers corrupted.
> <0001-Drop-reference-to-the-nfs4-filesystem-type-excepted-.patch>
Do not post patches as attachments. Please post patches inline so we can easily hit "reply" and comment. Thanks!
> From 95f5f0e1a5e1edf7a34a03ee3fecd8908fa1ddad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Guillaume Rousse <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:50:43 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] Drop reference to the nfs4 filesystem type, excepted as an older
> syntax, and document options as specific to a protocol version
> rather than to a filesystem type.
The Subject: field should be a short description (no more than 65 or so characters). The body of the description should describe the patch. What you have in the Subject: field here is a long description, and should go in the body.
Not a show stopper, but for future reference.
> Signed-off-by: Guillaume Rousse <[email protected]>
> ---
> utils/mount/nfs.man | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/utils/mount/nfs.man b/utils/mount/nfs.man
> index 3806635..fe58015 100644
> --- a/utils/mount/nfs.man
> +++ b/utils/mount/nfs.man
> @@ -3,8 +3,6 @@
> .SH NAME
> nfs \- fstab format and options for the
> .B nfs
> -and
> -.B nfs4
> file systems
If you removed "nfs4" then "file systems" should be made singular.
> .SH SYNOPSIS
> .I /etc/fstab
> @@ -71,14 +69,10 @@ for details on specifying raw IPv6 addresses.
> .P
> The
> .I fstype
> -field contains either "nfs" (for version 2 or version 3 NFS mounts)
> -or "nfs4" (for NFS version 4 mounts).
> +field contains "nfs", for whatever version of the protocol.
Since "nfs4" is still allowed and is not deprecated, I think a reference to it should remain here.
In general, I'd rather see an emphasis of "nfs vers=4" rather than removal of "nfs4" as "nfs4" still works and is supported for now.
> The
> .B nfs
> -and
> -.B nfs4
> -file system types share similar mount options,
> -which are described below.
> +allow several mount options, which are described below.
> .SH "MOUNT OPTIONS"
> Refer to
> .BR mount (8)
> @@ -89,14 +83,8 @@ specify any mount options, use the generic option
> in
> .IR /etc/fstab .
> .DT
> -.SS "Valid options for either the nfs or nfs4 file system type"
> -These options are valid to use when mounting either
> -.B nfs
> -or
> -.B nfs4
> -file system types.
> -They imply the same behavior
> -and have the same default for both file system types.
> +.SS "Options supported by all versions"
> +These options are valid to use with any NFS version.
> .TP 1.5i
> .BR soft " / " hard
> Determines the recovery behavior of the NFS client
> @@ -476,11 +464,9 @@ by other clients, but can impact application and server performance.
> .IP
> The DATA AND METADATA COHERENCE section contains a
> detailed discussion of these trade-offs.
> -.SS "Valid options for the nfs file system type"
> +.SS "Options for versions 2 and 3 only"
For clarity, I would prefer "Options for NFS versions 2 and 3 only" .
> Use these options, along with the options in the above subsection,
> -for mounting the
> -.B nfs
> -file system type.
> +for NFSv2/v3 only. They will be ignored for newer versions.
I avoided version abbreviations when I originally wrote this, for clarity. I think
"for NFS versions 2 and 3 only. They are ignored for newer versions."
Is more clear. And, we like to avoid the use of future tense in documentation.
> .TP 1.5i
> .BI proto= netid
> The transport protocol name and protocol family the NFS client uses
> @@ -722,11 +708,9 @@ If this option is not specified, the NFS client uses READDIRPLUS requests
> on NFS version 3 mounts to read small directories.
> Some applications perform better if the client uses only READDIR requests
> for all directories.
> -.SS "Valid options for the nfs4 file system type"
> +.SS "Options for version 4 only"
As above: "Options for NFS version 4 only"
> Use these options, along with the options in the first subsection above,
> -for mounting the
> -.B nfs4
> -file system type.
> +for NFSv4 only. They will be ignored with older versions.
Better: "for NFS version 4 only. They are ignored with older NFS versions."
> .TP 1.5i
> .BI proto= netid
> The transport protocol name and protocol family the NFS client uses
> @@ -823,6 +807,13 @@ In the presence of multiple client network interfaces,
> special routing policies,
> or atypical network topologies,
> the exact address to use for callbacks may be nontrivial to determine.
> +.SH nfs4 FILE SYSTEM TYPE
> +The
> +.BR nfs4
> +file system type is an old syntax for specifying NFSv4 usage. It can still
> +be used with all NFSv4-specific and common options, excepted the
> +.B nfsvers
> +mount option.
"nfs4" is not deprecated. I think we need to keep it as a first class citizen until support for it is gone. I'm OK with having a little section about the functional equivalence of "nfs vers=4" and "nfs4". Let's avoid the term "old syntax" (usually we use a weaker term like "legacy" :-)
And, the usual comments about using "NFS version 4" rather than "NFSv4" apply.
How about:
".SH nfs4 FILE SYSTEM TYPE
The
.B nfs4
file system type is equivalent to using the
.B nfs
file system type and specifying the
.I vers=4
mount option.
Mount options that are common to all NFS versions, and options that can be
used only when
.I vers=4
is specified are appropriate for
.B nfs4
file systems.
The use of
.B nfs
with the
.I vers=4
mount option is encouraged."
> .SH MOUNT CONFIGURATION FILE
> If the mount command is configured to do so, all of the mount options
> described in the previous section can also be configured in the
> @@ -844,12 +835,11 @@ file system type and specify the
> .B nfsvers=3
> mount option.
> To mount using NFS version 4,
> -use the
> -.B nfs4
> -file system type.
> -The
> -.B nfsvers
> -mount option is not supported for the
> +use either the
> +.B nfs
> +file system type, with the
No comma is needed here.
> +.B nfsvers=4
> +mount option, or the
> .B nfs4
> file system type.
> .P
> --
> 1.7.2.2
--
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com