* [9front] ramfs usage
@ 2024-05-16 22:03 me+unobe
2024-05-16 22:19 ` Romano
2024-06-19 20:36 ` ori
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: me+unobe @ 2024-05-16 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9front
I was looking at ramfs and noticed that the ordering of some flags
provided inconsistent behavior. For example:
cpu% ramfs -s -m /n/foo
cpu% cpu% ls -l /n
d-rwxrwxrwx M 83820 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
cpu% ramfs -m /n/boo -s
cpu% ls -l /n
d-rwxrwxrwx M 83788 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
cpu%
To address this, I think that -m should always add a mountpoint,
unless -i is used.
I also noticed that:
* a few of the (non-debugging) flags were not documented in the man
page: -b, -a, and -c to set the mount flags.
* -i is mutually exclusive with -s, -S, and -m, -b, -a, and -c but
that isn't clearly spelled out. If -s, -S, and -m are used together,
that seems like a fatal error to me, but if -b, -a, -c are used, that
is an ignorable error that can be mentioned on stderr. For instance:
cpu% ramfs -i -b
mount flags ignored when using -i:
cpu% ramfs -s -i
ramfs: -i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag
cpu%
* A sysfatal() error would never happen because mtpt is always
defined when srvname is not, and vice versa, because mtpt is set by
default and only unset when srvname is set.
I offer the attached patch for consideration.
From: Romano <me+git@fallglow.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 21:52:36 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] ramfs: document usage and provide clearer usage errors
Allow -m to be used to set mountpoint when used with -s and -S,
of ordering. Document flags -b, -a, and -c; document interaction
between certain flags, and raise errors when mis-use occurs.
---
diff 7089a0e8dc50d86dce93176d284e23f82e5d2bdf 0b55b43b99d97129a0ca0731243d1edc7bbbb6ae
--- a/sys/man/4/ramfs
+++ b/sys/man/4/ramfs
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
.SH SYNOPSIS
.B ramfs
[
-.B -Dipsu
+.B -Dipsubac
]
[
.B -m
@@ -15,30 +15,50 @@
.I srvname
]
.SH DESCRIPTION
+.PP
.I Ramfs
-starts a process that mounts itself (see
-.IR bind (2))
-on
-.I mountpoint
-(default
-.BR /tmp ).
+implements a file tree which keeps all files in memory.
+Initially the file tree is empty.
+.PP
The
.I ramfs
-process implements a file tree rooted at
-.IR dir ,
-keeping all files in memory.
-Initially the file tree is empty.
+process mounts the
+.IR mountpoint (or
+.B /tmp ,
+if not provided)
+with the mount flags
+.B MREPL and
+.B MCREATE .
+The mount flags can be set explicitly
+using
+.B -b ,
+.B -a , and
+.B -c ,
+corresponding respectively to the flags
+.B MBEFORE ,
+.B MAFTER , or
+.B MCREATE (see
+.IR bind(2)).
.PP
The
-.B -D
-option enables a trace of general debugging messages.
+.B -p
+flag causes
+.I ramfs
+to make its memory `private'
+(see
+.IR proc (3))
+so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
.PP
The
+.B -D
+flag enables a trace of general debugging messages.
+.PP
.B -i
flag tells
.I ramfs
to use file descriptors 0 and 1 for its communication channel
-rather than create a pipe.
+rather than create a pipe or mount at
+.IR mountpoint .
This makes it possible to use
.I ramfs
as a file server on a remote machine: the file descriptors 0
@@ -47,15 +67,6 @@
to the client machine.
.PP
The
-.B -p
-flag causes
-.I ramfs
-to make its memory `private'
-(see
-.IR proc (3))
-so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
-.PP
-The
.B -s
.RB ( -S )
flag causes
@@ -62,17 +73,26 @@
.I ramfs
to post its channel on
.B /srv/ramfs
-.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR)
-rather than mounting it on
-.IR mountpoint ,
+.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR) ,
enabling multiple clients to access its files.
-However, it does not authenticate its clients and its
+The flag also causes
+.I ramfs
+to not use the default
+.IR mountpoint
+.B /tmp ,
+however it will use the mountpoint
+.IR mountpoint
+explicit;y set using the
+.B -m
+flag.
+.I Ramfs
+does not authenticate its clients and its
implementation of groups is simplistic, so
it should not be used for precious data.
.PP
The
.B -u
-option permits
+flag permits
.I ramfs
to consume as much memory as needed;
without it,
@@ -86,4 +106,5 @@
.SH SOURCE
.B /sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
.SH "SEE ALSO"
-.IR bind (2)
+.IR bind (2) ,
+.IR proc (3)
--- a/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
+++ b/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
@@ -455,27 +455,40 @@
{
char *srvname = nil;
char *mtpt = "/tmp";
- int mountflags, stdio;
+ int marg, mountflags, stdio;
fs.tree = alloctree(nil, nil, DMDIR|0777, fsdestroyfile);
- mountflags = stdio = 0;
+ marg = mountflags = stdio = 0;
ARGBEGIN{
case 'D':
chatty9p++;
break;
case 's':
+ if(stdio)
+ sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -i flag");
srvname = "ramfs";
- mtpt = nil;
+ if(marg == 0)
+ mtpt = nil;
break;
case 'S':
+ if(stdio)
+ sysfatal("-S cannot be used with -i flag");
+ if(srvname)
+ sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -S");
srvname = EARGF(usage());
- mtpt = nil;
+ if(marg == 0)
+ mtpt = nil;
break;
case 'm':
+ if(stdio)
+ sysfatal("-m cannot be used with -i flag");
mtpt = EARGF(usage());
+ marg = 1;
break;
case 'i':
+ if(srvname || marg)
+ sysfatal("-i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag");
stdio = 1;
break;
case 'p':
@@ -500,14 +513,14 @@
usage();
if(stdio){
+ if(mountflags)
+ perror("mount flags ignored when using -i");
+
fs.infd = 0;
fs.outfd = 1;
srv(&fs);
exits(0);
}
-
- if(srvname == nil && mtpt == nil)
- sysfatal("must specify -S, or -m option");
if(mountflags == 0)
mountflags = MREPL | MCREATE;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] ramfs usage
2024-05-16 22:03 [9front] ramfs usage me+unobe
@ 2024-05-16 22:19 ` Romano
2024-06-18 17:59 ` Romano
2024-06-19 20:36 ` ori
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Romano @ 2024-05-16 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9front
Oy. I see two typos in the man page that I introduced: a
missing 'The' before describing the -i flag and misspelling
of explicity.
From: Romano <me+git@fallglow.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 22:18:55 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] ramfs: fix typos in man page
---
diff 0b55b43b99d97129a0ca0731243d1edc7bbbb6ae b373869e8319c8d25b27db40929e5d19c1371659
--- a/sys/man/4/ramfs
+++ b/sys/man/4/ramfs
@@ -53,6 +53,7 @@
.B -D
flag enables a trace of general debugging messages.
.PP
+The
.B -i
flag tells
.I ramfs
@@ -82,7 +83,7 @@
.B /tmp ,
however it will use the mountpoint
.IR mountpoint
-explicit;y set using the
+explicitly set using the
.B -m
flag.
.I Ramfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] ramfs usage
2024-05-16 22:03 [9front] ramfs usage me+unobe
2024-05-16 22:19 ` Romano
@ 2024-06-19 20:36 ` ori
2024-06-19 21:21 ` Jacob Moody
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: ori @ 2024-06-19 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9front
Hm. I'll talke a look at this; I wonder if it's too late
to clean up the interaction of the flags. Probably :(
Quoth me+unobe@fallglow.com:
> I was looking at ramfs and noticed that the ordering of some flags
> provided inconsistent behavior. For example:
>
> cpu% ramfs -s -m /n/foo
> cpu% cpu% ls -l /n
> d-rwxrwxrwx M 83820 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
> cpu% ramfs -m /n/boo -s
> cpu% ls -l /n
> d-rwxrwxrwx M 83788 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
> cpu%
>
> To address this, I think that -m should always add a mountpoint,
> unless -i is used.
>
> I also noticed that:
>
> * a few of the (non-debugging) flags were not documented in the man
> page: -b, -a, and -c to set the mount flags.
>
> * -i is mutually exclusive with -s, -S, and -m, -b, -a, and -c but
> that isn't clearly spelled out. If -s, -S, and -m are used together,
> that seems like a fatal error to me, but if -b, -a, -c are used, that
> is an ignorable error that can be mentioned on stderr. For instance:
>
> cpu% ramfs -i -b
> mount flags ignored when using -i:
> cpu% ramfs -s -i
> ramfs: -i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag
> cpu%
>
> * A sysfatal() error would never happen because mtpt is always
> defined when srvname is not, and vice versa, because mtpt is set by
> default and only unset when srvname is set.
>
> I offer the attached patch for consideration.
>
> From: Romano <me+git@fallglow.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 21:52:36 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] ramfs: document usage and provide clearer usage errors
>
>
> Allow -m to be used to set mountpoint when used with -s and -S,
> of ordering. Document flags -b, -a, and -c; document interaction
> between certain flags, and raise errors when mis-use occurs.
> ---
> diff 7089a0e8dc50d86dce93176d284e23f82e5d2bdf 0b55b43b99d97129a0ca0731243d1edc7bbbb6ae
> --- a/sys/man/4/ramfs
> +++ b/sys/man/4/ramfs
> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
> .SH SYNOPSIS
> .B ramfs
> [
> -.B -Dipsu
> +.B -Dipsubac
> ]
> [
> .B -m
> @@ -15,30 +15,50 @@
> .I srvname
> ]
> .SH DESCRIPTION
> +.PP
> .I Ramfs
> -starts a process that mounts itself (see
> -.IR bind (2))
> -on
> -.I mountpoint
> -(default
> -.BR /tmp ).
> +implements a file tree which keeps all files in memory.
> +Initially the file tree is empty.
> +.PP
> The
> .I ramfs
> -process implements a file tree rooted at
> -.IR dir ,
> -keeping all files in memory.
> -Initially the file tree is empty.
> +process mounts the
> +.IR mountpoint (or
> +.B /tmp ,
> +if not provided)
> +with the mount flags
> +.B MREPL and
> +.B MCREATE .
> +The mount flags can be set explicitly
> +using
> +.B -b ,
> +.B -a , and
> +.B -c ,
> +corresponding respectively to the flags
> +.B MBEFORE ,
> +.B MAFTER , or
> +.B MCREATE (see
> +.IR bind(2)).
> .PP
> The
> -.B -D
> -option enables a trace of general debugging messages.
> +.B -p
> +flag causes
> +.I ramfs
> +to make its memory `private'
> +(see
> +.IR proc (3))
> +so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
> .PP
> The
> +.B -D
> +flag enables a trace of general debugging messages.
> +.PP
> .B -i
> flag tells
> .I ramfs
> to use file descriptors 0 and 1 for its communication channel
> -rather than create a pipe.
> +rather than create a pipe or mount at
> +.IR mountpoint .
> This makes it possible to use
> .I ramfs
> as a file server on a remote machine: the file descriptors 0
> @@ -47,15 +67,6 @@
> to the client machine.
> .PP
> The
> -.B -p
> -flag causes
> -.I ramfs
> -to make its memory `private'
> -(see
> -.IR proc (3))
> -so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
> -.PP
> -The
> .B -s
> .RB ( -S )
> flag causes
> @@ -62,17 +73,26 @@
> .I ramfs
> to post its channel on
> .B /srv/ramfs
> -.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR)
> -rather than mounting it on
> -.IR mountpoint ,
> +.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR) ,
> enabling multiple clients to access its files.
> -However, it does not authenticate its clients and its
> +The flag also causes
> +.I ramfs
> +to not use the default
> +.IR mountpoint
> +.B /tmp ,
> +however it will use the mountpoint
> +.IR mountpoint
> +explicit;y set using the
> +.B -m
> +flag.
> +.I Ramfs
> +does not authenticate its clients and its
> implementation of groups is simplistic, so
> it should not be used for precious data.
> .PP
> The
> .B -u
> -option permits
> +flag permits
> .I ramfs
> to consume as much memory as needed;
> without it,
> @@ -86,4 +106,5 @@
> .SH SOURCE
> .B /sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
> .SH "SEE ALSO"
> -.IR bind (2)
> +.IR bind (2) ,
> +.IR proc (3)
> --- a/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
> +++ b/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
> @@ -455,27 +455,40 @@
> {
> char *srvname = nil;
> char *mtpt = "/tmp";
> - int mountflags, stdio;
> + int marg, mountflags, stdio;
>
> fs.tree = alloctree(nil, nil, DMDIR|0777, fsdestroyfile);
>
> - mountflags = stdio = 0;
> + marg = mountflags = stdio = 0;
> ARGBEGIN{
> case 'D':
> chatty9p++;
> break;
> case 's':
> + if(stdio)
> + sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -i flag");
> srvname = "ramfs";
> - mtpt = nil;
> + if(marg == 0)
> + mtpt = nil;
> break;
> case 'S':
> + if(stdio)
> + sysfatal("-S cannot be used with -i flag");
> + if(srvname)
> + sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -S");
> srvname = EARGF(usage());
> - mtpt = nil;
> + if(marg == 0)
> + mtpt = nil;
> break;
> case 'm':
> + if(stdio)
> + sysfatal("-m cannot be used with -i flag");
> mtpt = EARGF(usage());
> + marg = 1;
> break;
> case 'i':
> + if(srvname || marg)
> + sysfatal("-i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag");
> stdio = 1;
> break;
> case 'p':
> @@ -500,14 +513,14 @@
> usage();
>
> if(stdio){
> + if(mountflags)
> + perror("mount flags ignored when using -i");
> +
> fs.infd = 0;
> fs.outfd = 1;
> srv(&fs);
> exits(0);
> }
> -
> - if(srvname == nil && mtpt == nil)
> - sysfatal("must specify -S, or -m option");
>
> if(mountflags == 0)
> mountflags = MREPL | MCREATE;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] ramfs usage
2024-06-19 20:36 ` ori
@ 2024-06-19 21:21 ` Jacob Moody
2024-06-20 4:43 ` Romano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jacob Moody @ 2024-06-19 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9front
My vote would be to keep things as is.
While it is not a great precedent, a large chunk of code
from what I've seen don't throw errors for nonsensical combinations.
If doing things from scratch I would think perhaps its worth the effort
to check for, but it is probably too late to set this precedent and modifying
programs after the fact. I just don't want this to be the start of this happening
to every program.
A lot of these man page changes seem like a general rewrite, in particular the
change of "option" to "flag" which feels off.
It just doesn't seem the benefits outweigh the cost of the churn to me.
Thanks,
Moody
On 6/19/24 15:36, ori@eigenstate.org wrote:
> Hm. I'll talke a look at this; I wonder if it's too late
> to clean up the interaction of the flags. Probably :(
>
> Quoth me+unobe@fallglow.com:
>> I was looking at ramfs and noticed that the ordering of some flags
>> provided inconsistent behavior. For example:
>>
>> cpu% ramfs -s -m /n/foo
>> cpu% cpu% ls -l /n
>> d-rwxrwxrwx M 83820 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
>> cpu% ramfs -m /n/boo -s
>> cpu% ls -l /n
>> d-rwxrwxrwx M 83788 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
>> cpu%
>>
>> To address this, I think that -m should always add a mountpoint,
>> unless -i is used.
>>
>> I also noticed that:
>>
>> * a few of the (non-debugging) flags were not documented in the man
>> page: -b, -a, and -c to set the mount flags.
>>
>> * -i is mutually exclusive with -s, -S, and -m, -b, -a, and -c but
>> that isn't clearly spelled out. If -s, -S, and -m are used together,
>> that seems like a fatal error to me, but if -b, -a, -c are used, that
>> is an ignorable error that can be mentioned on stderr. For instance:
>>
>> cpu% ramfs -i -b
>> mount flags ignored when using -i:
>> cpu% ramfs -s -i
>> ramfs: -i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag
>> cpu%
>>
>> * A sysfatal() error would never happen because mtpt is always
>> defined when srvname is not, and vice versa, because mtpt is set by
>> default and only unset when srvname is set.
>>
>> I offer the attached patch for consideration.
>>
>> From: Romano <me+git@fallglow.com>
>> Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 21:52:36 +0000
>> Subject: [PATCH] ramfs: document usage and provide clearer usage errors
>>
>>
>> Allow -m to be used to set mountpoint when used with -s and -S,
>> of ordering. Document flags -b, -a, and -c; document interaction
>> between certain flags, and raise errors when mis-use occurs.
>> ---
>> diff 7089a0e8dc50d86dce93176d284e23f82e5d2bdf 0b55b43b99d97129a0ca0731243d1edc7bbbb6ae
>> --- a/sys/man/4/ramfs
>> +++ b/sys/man/4/ramfs
>> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
>> .SH SYNOPSIS
>> .B ramfs
>> [
>> -.B -Dipsu
>> +.B -Dipsubac
>> ]
>> [
>> .B -m
>> @@ -15,30 +15,50 @@
>> .I srvname
>> ]
>> .SH DESCRIPTION
>> +.PP
>> .I Ramfs
>> -starts a process that mounts itself (see
>> -.IR bind (2))
>> -on
>> -.I mountpoint
>> -(default
>> -.BR /tmp ).
>> +implements a file tree which keeps all files in memory.
>> +Initially the file tree is empty.
>> +.PP
>> The
>> .I ramfs
>> -process implements a file tree rooted at
>> -.IR dir ,
>> -keeping all files in memory.
>> -Initially the file tree is empty.
>> +process mounts the
>> +.IR mountpoint (or
>> +.B /tmp ,
>> +if not provided)
>> +with the mount flags
>> +.B MREPL and
>> +.B MCREATE .
>> +The mount flags can be set explicitly
>> +using
>> +.B -b ,
>> +.B -a , and
>> +.B -c ,
>> +corresponding respectively to the flags
>> +.B MBEFORE ,
>> +.B MAFTER , or
>> +.B MCREATE (see
>> +.IR bind(2)).
>> .PP
>> The
>> -.B -D
>> -option enables a trace of general debugging messages.
>> +.B -p
>> +flag causes
>> +.I ramfs
>> +to make its memory `private'
>> +(see
>> +.IR proc (3))
>> +so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
>> .PP
>> The
>> +.B -D
>> +flag enables a trace of general debugging messages.
>> +.PP
>> .B -i
>> flag tells
>> .I ramfs
>> to use file descriptors 0 and 1 for its communication channel
>> -rather than create a pipe.
>> +rather than create a pipe or mount at
>> +.IR mountpoint .
>> This makes it possible to use
>> .I ramfs
>> as a file server on a remote machine: the file descriptors 0
>> @@ -47,15 +67,6 @@
>> to the client machine.
>> .PP
>> The
>> -.B -p
>> -flag causes
>> -.I ramfs
>> -to make its memory `private'
>> -(see
>> -.IR proc (3))
>> -so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
>> -.PP
>> -The
>> .B -s
>> .RB ( -S )
>> flag causes
>> @@ -62,17 +73,26 @@
>> .I ramfs
>> to post its channel on
>> .B /srv/ramfs
>> -.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR)
>> -rather than mounting it on
>> -.IR mountpoint ,
>> +.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR) ,
>> enabling multiple clients to access its files.
>> -However, it does not authenticate its clients and its
>> +The flag also causes
>> +.I ramfs
>> +to not use the default
>> +.IR mountpoint
>> +.B /tmp ,
>> +however it will use the mountpoint
>> +.IR mountpoint
>> +explicit;y set using the
>> +.B -m
>> +flag.
>> +.I Ramfs
>> +does not authenticate its clients and its
>> implementation of groups is simplistic, so
>> it should not be used for precious data.
>> .PP
>> The
>> .B -u
>> -option permits
>> +flag permits
>> .I ramfs
>> to consume as much memory as needed;
>> without it,
>> @@ -86,4 +106,5 @@
>> .SH SOURCE
>> .B /sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
>> .SH "SEE ALSO"
>> -.IR bind (2)
>> +.IR bind (2) ,
>> +.IR proc (3)
>> --- a/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
>> +++ b/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
>> @@ -455,27 +455,40 @@
>> {
>> char *srvname = nil;
>> char *mtpt = "/tmp";
>> - int mountflags, stdio;
>> + int marg, mountflags, stdio;
>>
>> fs.tree = alloctree(nil, nil, DMDIR|0777, fsdestroyfile);
>>
>> - mountflags = stdio = 0;
>> + marg = mountflags = stdio = 0;
>> ARGBEGIN{
>> case 'D':
>> chatty9p++;
>> break;
>> case 's':
>> + if(stdio)
>> + sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -i flag");
>> srvname = "ramfs";
>> - mtpt = nil;
>> + if(marg == 0)
>> + mtpt = nil;
>> break;
>> case 'S':
>> + if(stdio)
>> + sysfatal("-S cannot be used with -i flag");
>> + if(srvname)
>> + sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -S");
>> srvname = EARGF(usage());
>> - mtpt = nil;
>> + if(marg == 0)
>> + mtpt = nil;
>> break;
>> case 'm':
>> + if(stdio)
>> + sysfatal("-m cannot be used with -i flag");
>> mtpt = EARGF(usage());
>> + marg = 1;
>> break;
>> case 'i':
>> + if(srvname || marg)
>> + sysfatal("-i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag");
>> stdio = 1;
>> break;
>> case 'p':
>> @@ -500,14 +513,14 @@
>> usage();
>>
>> if(stdio){
>> + if(mountflags)
>> + perror("mount flags ignored when using -i");
>> +
>> fs.infd = 0;
>> fs.outfd = 1;
>> srv(&fs);
>> exits(0);
>> }
>> -
>> - if(srvname == nil && mtpt == nil)
>> - sysfatal("must specify -S, or -m option");
>>
>> if(mountflags == 0)
>> mountflags = MREPL | MCREATE;
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] ramfs usage
2024-06-19 21:21 ` Jacob Moody
@ 2024-06-20 4:43 ` Romano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Romano @ 2024-06-20 4:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9front
On Wed Jun 19 14:23:38 -0700 2024, moody@posixcafe.org wrote:
> My vote would be to keep things as is.
>
> While it is not a great precedent, a large chunk of code
> from what I've seen don't throw errors for nonsensical combinations.
> If doing things from scratch I would think perhaps its worth the effort
> to check for, but it is probably too late to set this precedent and modifying
> programs after the fact. I just don't want this to be the start of this happening
> to every program.
Thanks for the look-thru, Moody. Yeah, that makes sense. To be honest, this
was me going through to understand exactly how ramfs worked and coming across some
puzzling behavior (like the ordering of -s & -m making a difference), and then
taking more time to figure out how it matched up with the man page and addressing
it so that I don't have to be concerned if I specify -s or -m first.
> A lot of these man page changes seem like a general rewrite, in particular the
> change of "option" to "flag" which feels off.
Yeah, it was really to align all to either "option" or "flag". For instance,
before the change some (-u, -D) were described as "option" while others
(-p, -i, -s) were described as "flag". Maybe I'm missing a nuance there.
> It just doesn't seem the benefits outweigh the cost of the churn to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Moody
Okay, thanks, Moody. At least I learned something by working through it.
I do appreciate the consideration.
> On 6/19/24 15:36, ori@eigenstate.org wrote:
> > Hm. I'll talke a look at this; I wonder if it's too late
> > to clean up the interaction of the flags. Probably :(
Thanks, Ori.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-06-20 4:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-05-16 22:03 [9front] ramfs usage me+unobe
2024-05-16 22:19 ` Romano
2024-06-18 17:59 ` Romano
2024-06-19 20:36 ` ori
2024-06-19 21:21 ` Jacob Moody
2024-06-20 4:43 ` Romano
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).