bin/52590: Minor documentation improvements for resize_ffs(8)

[dhgutteridge%sympatico.ca@localhost]

>Number:         52590
>Category:       bin
>Synopsis:       Minor documentation improvements for resize_ffs(8)
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    bin-bug-people
>State:          open
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Sun Oct 01 22:55:00 +0000 2017
>Originator:     David H. Gutteridge
>Release:        HEAD
>Organization:
>Environment:
n/a
>Description:
I noticed a couple of minor issues with resize_ffs(8)'s documentation.
First, the usage message is missing the -p option:

--- resize_ffs.c.orig
+++ resize_ffs.c
@@ -2304,7 +2304,7 @@
 usage(void)
 {
 
-	(void)fprintf(stderr, "usage: %s [-cvy] [-s size] special\n",
+	(void)fprintf(stderr, "usage: %s [-cpvy] [-s size] special\n",
 	    getprogname());
 	exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
 }

Second, the man page makes reference to information in the WARNING
section that was removed years ago. (I stumbled over it since I read
the sentence in question and then went looking for what it could be
referring to.)

--- resize_ffs.8.orig
+++ resize_ffs.8
@@ -128,10 +128,8 @@
 .Aq riz%NetBSD.org@localhost
 (Byteswapped file system and UFS2 support)
 .Pp
-A big bug-finding kudos goes to John Kohl for finding the rotational
-layout bug referred to in the
-.Sx WARNING
-section above.
+A big bug-finding kudos goes to John Kohl for finding a significant
+rotational layout bug.
 .Sh BUGS
 Can fail to shrink a file system when there actually is enough space,
 because it does not distinguish between a block allocated as a block

Separately, unlike fsck(8), it seems resize_ffs(8) doesn't make any
mention of considerations about mounted vs. unmounted file systems. I
personally wouldn't be inclined to run it on a mounted file system,
but resize_lfs(8) states that tool only works on mounted file systems,
which may lead to users (like me) wondering.

>How-To-Repeat:
As above.
>Fix:
As above.