Subject: Re: VERY strange command-line syntax for 'df -t'
To: NetBSD Userlevel Technical Discussion List <tech-userlevel@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 04/08/2002 13:08:33
[ On Monday, April 8, 2002 at 11:51:11 (+0100), David Laight wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: VERY strange command-line syntax for 'df -t'
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 06:52:46PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > The second alternative, with the first variation is probably the best
> > because it is completely compatible with the current syntax. I.e. just
> > allow 'no' to prefix each item in the list:
> > -t nonfs,[no]mfs
> -t nonfs,mfs
> Does this request actualy make sense?
Do you mean within the context of my proposal, or in the current
implementation? I.e. do you really mean:
> Since file systems types don't overlap, if you explicitly include
> one file systems type you implicitly exclude all others.
I discussed this already, but perhaps not in enough detail.
What about if other command-line operands imply a default list of
filesystems which is a subset of the complete list?
What about this documented behaviour (from df(8))?
If a file system is given on the command line that is not of the
specified type, a warning is issued and no information is given on
that file system.
Under my proposal I would expect your example to generate a warning if
no "mfs" filesystems are mounted (and no files are specified on the
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>