From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 27565 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2021 17:20:41 -0000
Received: from 1ess.inri.net (216.126.196.35)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 16 Aug 2021 17:20:41 -0000
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]) by 1ess; Mon Aug 16 12:58:50 -0400 2021
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
	by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DC813CC58
	for <9front@9front.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 12:50:27 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from unobe@cpan.org)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id
	:to:subject:date:from:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=BYdQyMH34nPycoPP7/K5hYJX0
	uLUumxUPO3/jDGYRBM=; b=GIfsrC8FnQ2RRN633OfMEruzNc4Xp0aYDPY12NZY9
	0R15KpY19NDxLVhxkemBAuczj/S5ke03wvCXlhTQTkX3JXHtmUD8fKkLMHH95aZl
	n832Fx5cx+4BCvsQNhInkFK1knf+DUHB7bMK0RUHVPgVp77SQ+jfl9bbmIndbFrR
	hA=
Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
	by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAAB13CC57
	for <9front@9front.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 12:50:27 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from unobe@cpan.org)
Received: from strider (unknown [47.34.135.186])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD75E13CC54
	for <9front@9front.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 12:50:24 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from unobe@cpan.org)
Message-ID: <D3607DB587F91E02BCAC8BF5FEDEC7C4@smtp.pobox.com>
To: 9front@9front.org
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 09:50:23 -0700
From: unobe@cpan.org
In-Reply-To: <1FB5D1B9C97EB96BD9B642CB8AD1362D@qak>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pobox-Relay-ID:
 0D6A4482-FEB2-11EB-AACA-D5C30F5B5667-09620299!pb-smtp20.pobox.com
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: basic content-addressed high-performance-aware app 
Subject: Re: [9front] exportfs: fix debug logging
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoth kvik@a-b.xyz:
> Quoth unobe@cpan.org:
> > File servers being anything categorized under section 4?  For example,
> > I just looked at a few ( cfs(4), cifs(4), sshfs(4) ) which all use -d.
> 
> Yea, consistency is WIP.  Here's what 9p(2) has to say about it:
> 
> 	By convention, servers written using this library accept the -D
> 	option to increment chatty9p.
> 
> Note that some file servers that support -D don't care to document it
> in the manual -- specifically because it's a "well known" convention.
> cifs(4) from your list is one example.
> 
> I do realize now that exportfs mixes the 9p trace and general debug
> output, so maybe -d is more appropriate after all.  Not sure, and I
> certainly don't want to bog down this patch submission with my
> bikeshed.  We can deal with many consistency issues at some other
> time.
> 

Thanks for the info.  I was thinking the discussion of -D/-d was
tangential anyway so I hadn't intended to hold up the patch from being
committed.  But I had a question about the topic, so figured I'd ask.