Hi Aleksa, Askar, On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 07:42:09PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > On 2025-08-26, Askar Safin <safinaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My edit is based on experiments and reading Linux code > > > > Signed-off-by: Askar Safin <safinaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! I've applied the patch, with some tweaks. <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/src/alx/linux/man-pages/man-pages.git/commit/?h=contrib&id=b479b1fe01569d4926cbc59fa31caab8cd01fdad> (use port 80; this stops AI crawlers.) > > --- > > man/man2/mount.2 | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/man/man2/mount.2 b/man/man2/mount.2 > > index 5d83231f9..599c2d6fa 100644 > > --- a/man/man2/mount.2 > > +++ b/man/man2/mount.2 > > @@ -405,7 +405,25 @@ flag can be used with > > to modify only the per-mount-point flags. > > .\" See https://lwn.net/Articles/281157/ > > This is particularly useful for setting or clearing the "read-only" > > -flag on a mount without changing the underlying filesystem. > > +flag on a mount without changing the underlying filesystem parameters. > > When reading the whole sentence, this feels a bit incomplete > ("filesystem parameters ... of what?"). Maybe > > This is particularly useful for setting or clearing the "read-only" > flag on a mount without changing the underlying filesystem's > filesystem parameters. > > or > > This is particularly useful for setting or clearing the "read-only" > flag on a mount without changing the filesystem parameters of the > underlying filesystem. > > would be better? Yep; I've taken the second proposal. > > That one nit aside, feel free to take my > > Reviewed-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! Appended. > > +The > > +.I data > > +argument is ignored if > > +.B MS_REMOUNT > > +and > > +.B MS_BIND > > +are specified. I have removed the mention of MS_REMOUNT and MS_BIND, since the first sentence in the paragraph already mentions them. Otherwise, it felt a bit confusing why some sentences mentioned it and others not. > > +The mount point will > > +have its existing per-mount-point flags I have reworded this to use present instead of future, and also reversed the order of the clauses; if feels more readable now. Have a lovely day! Alex > > +cleared and replaced with those in > > +.IR mountflags . > > +This means that > > +if you wish to preserve > > +any existing per-mount-point flags, > > +you need to include them in > > +.IR mountflags , > > +along with the per-mount-point flags you wish to set > > +(or with the flags you wish to clear missing). > > Specifying > > .I mountflags > > as: > > @@ -416,8 +434,11 @@ MS_REMOUNT | MS_BIND | MS_RDONLY > > .EE > > .in > > .P > > -will make access through this mountpoint read-only, without affecting > > -other mounts. > > +will make access through this mount point read-only > > +(clearing all other per-mount-point flags), > > +without affecting > > +other mounts > > +of this filesystem. > > .\" > > .SS Creating a bind mount > > If > > -- > > 2.47.2 > > > > -- > Aleksa Sarai > Senior Software Engineer (Containers) > SUSE Linux GmbH > https://www.cyphar.com/ -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es> Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
