Re: umount2

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:43:29 +0100 (BST)

> Moreover, the name change does not serve any useful purpose.
> No present call of umount() can become a call of the new function
> because it has the wrong number of arguments.

Actually I thought hard about this. When I tweaked glibc amd then built
second time after it decided I had an OSF style umount.

> Therefore, I would like to suggest to call the new system call
> umount2 (for `umount with 2 arguments').

Then it breaks applications that already know about the 2 argument umount.
Most generic apps do know about both forms. We are 100% OSF/Digital Unix
compatible on this one. Stuff seems to just work out

Thoughts ?

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html