On May 19, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Talpey, Thomas wrote:
At 10:16 PM 5/17/2008, Chuck Lever wrote:
Clean up: refresh the help text for Kconfig items related to the NFS
client. Remove obsolete URLs, and make the language consistent among
the options.
I like the patch for no other reason than (finally) getting rid
of the CODA nasty-gram:
- A superior but less widely used alternative to NFS is provided by
- the Coda file system; see "Coda file system support" below.
But I do have a comment - I think calling it "Sun's" protocol is
unnecessary.
It's an IETF standard, and widely implemented.
I think that's why this patch was originally rejected. Trond didn't
like the fact that I said IETF standard, but I don't recall the exact
details.
+ Choose Y here if you want to access files residing on other
+ computers using Sun's Network File System protocol. To compile
+ this file system support as a module, choose M here: the module
+ will be called nfs.
config NFS_V3
- bool "Provide NFSv3 client support"
+ bool "NFS client support for NFS version 3"
The new option says NFS twice.
Yes, but I think it makes the description more precise. It could say
"NFS client support for version 3" or "Client support for NFS version
3". I think both of those choices are ambiguous in one way or another.
config NFS_V4
- bool "Provide NFSv4 client support (EXPERIMENTAL)"
+ bool "NFS client support for NFS version 4 (EXPERIMENTAL)"
depends on NFS_FS && EXPERIMENTAL
Is it necessary to say "(EXPERIMENTAL)"? There are many other kernel
options that don't, but in fact are dependent.
It's usually good to mark these as experimental, and it has been
convention for a long while, but I don't see a requirement for it.
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
