Bug 1016583
Summary: | mount manpage: need descriptions about btrfs mount options | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Eryu Guan <eguan> |
Component: | btrfs-progs | Assignee: | Eric Sandeen <esandeen> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | XuWang <xuw> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 7.0 | CC: | eguan, esandeen, kzak, pschiffe, zab |
Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | ManPageChange |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | btrfs-progs-3.16-1.el7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-03-05 13:13:17 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Eryu Guan
2013-10-08 11:21:19 UTC
I have a better idea, create "btrfs.5" man page as we already have for example for NFS. I don't think that add a new filesystem and increment number of fs-specific things in mount.8 is a good idea. I'd like to go in completely opposite direction and force FS maintainer to create <fstype>.5 man pages. The mount options are (mostly) documented in kernel docs. A quick & dirty translation to manpage format shouldn't be too bad. I did the kernel docs, so I guess I'll take this bug. -Eric This will actually get done as part of the btrfs-progs rebase; we've moved fs-specific mount options for many filesystems into fs-specific manpages. Karel, do we need to coordinate this with a mount(8) update? -Eric I've sent the patch to add mount options to btrfs manpages upstream, hopefully it'll make the next release. Does it mean you want to backport the fs-specific man pages to RHEL7? If yes, then it would be nice to remove the duplicate things from RHEL7 mount.8. From upstream point of view we have to provide time for downstream distros to adopt this change, so we're going to release v2.25 (probably next Monday) with the classic mount.8 that also includes btrfs stuff. And I hope that v2.26 (end of this year) will be without extN, XFS, btrfs (etc.) stuff in mount.8. Anyway, I don't see a problem to have the information on both places (e.g. btrfs.5 and mount.8) for short time before all distros update all the packages. For RHEL7 we can coordinate all within one update. Karel, I will probably backport the ext234/xfs/btrfs specific man pages for RHEL7, yes - actually, xfs is already done. And we'll rebase btrfs-progs again, so just e2fsprogs remains, and it's on the acl this release, so may as well do it. I forgot, this got done in 3.16: BTRFS-MOUNT(5) Btrfs Manual BTRFS-MOUNT(5) NAME btrfs-mount - mount options and supported file attributes for the btrfs filesystem ... MOUNT OPTIONS alloc_start=bytes Debugging option to force all block allocations above a certain byte threshold on each block device. The value is specified in bytes, optionally with a K, M, or G suffix, case insensitive. Default is 1MB. ... I verify it in RHEL7.1, with the btrfs-progs-3.16.2-1.el7.x86_64. type man 5 btrfs, and the map page shows like below: BTRFS-MOUNT(5) Btrfs Manual BTRFS-MOUNT(5) NAME btrfs-mount - mount options and supported file attributes for the btrfs filesystem DESCRIPTION This document describes mount options specific to the btrfs filesystem. Other generic mount options are available,and are described in the mount(8) manpage. MOUNT OPTIONS alloc_start=bytes Debugging option to force all block allocations above a certain byte threshold on each block device. The value is specified in bytes, optionally with a K, M, or G suffix, case insensitive. Default is 1MB. So I think the status of this bug should be verified. Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-0534.html |