tags 735590 fixed-upstream thanks Hi Axel,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Axel Beckert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> One thing that would have helped here is if you could have supplied >> some text explaining what "nodev" is. > > I had some idea, but was unsure and looked into the man-page to read > more about it. > >> (Or, if you don't know, then it would help to explicitly note that >> in the bug.) > > I didn't expect that this needs explicit mentioning. The thing is, I sometimes get bug reports from people who *do* know the details, but they initially neither tell me them nor indicate that they know them--perhaps because they think the point is obvious enough that I don't need to be told. So, it saves me a few cycles if people tell me what they do or don't know; then I know what I can or can't ask them. ;-) See what I mean? >> [[ >> If the work "nodev" appears before a filesystem name, then that >> filesystem does not require a corresponding device in order to be >> mounted (i.e., it is a pseudo-filesystem). >> ]] >> >> Look okay to you? > > Doesn't clash with what I guessed, but since I was looking for facts, > I can't say if it's correct or wrong. I just now noticed that "nodev" is documented in /proc/filesystems [[ If a filesystem is marked with "nodev", this means that it does not require a block device to be mounted (e.g., virtual filesystem, network filesystem) ]] So what's needed is a pointer from filesystems(5) to proc(5). I'll add that. Thanks for the report. Cheers, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
