smbfs manuals: describe consistently #1263
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Not sure if it's sane to remove the "resource" keyword from mount_smbfs,
but with this change mount_smbfs will look more like the other mount tools.
Also all of our SMB1 stuff will have consistent descriptions and respond intelligently to "apropos {server message block, CIFS, SMB}".
Tested on our beautiful standard console, nothing wraps.
I trimmed one /$FreeBSD$ and added one SPDX, that's all I could do with that.
Lately I'm wondering if it's appropriate for me to make noise about that in commit log?
Rationale: I like our SMB1/CIFS driver, and tooling previously hard to distinguish from SMBus
MFC after: 3 days