Joerg Schilling wrote: > Darren J Moffat <darrenm at sac.sfbay.sun.com> wrote: > >> NOTES >> If the directory on which a file system is to be mounted is >> --- mount_hsfs.man Mon Apr 28 06:57:45 2008 >> +++ mount_hsfs.new Mon Apr 28 06:55:09 2008 >> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ >> the missing arguments, including the FSType- >> specific_options; see mount(1M) for more details. >> >> + hsfs supports loopback file mounts: see mount(1M). > > .... > > It does not seem to be a good idea to let the incorrect name "loopback file > mounts" taken from Linux leak into many man pages. > > The idea has first been implemented on SunOS in 1988 and the correct > naming for what's happening would be something like "emulated block device". > If at all, please use "lofi" to avoid confusion with real loopback mounts > done via "mount -F lofs".
I agree with Joerg here I already see a lot of people confused between lofs and lofi and the language in the proposed man page changes will further that confusion. I think this an appropriate comment for architecture review, rather than being a documentation review issue, because we need to make sure that we name things correctly when describing functionality especially in an area where there are two similarly named bits of functionality that do very different things. Now if I could turn back history lofi(7D) wasn't a great name choice but we are stuck with it. My suggestion for wording would be more like: "This filesystem type supports direct mounting of files containing the filesystem as well as block devices: see mount(1M) and lofiadm(1M)" -- Darren J Moffat
