> In linux-2.1.116-1 a new system call sys_umount is introduced
> and the old one is rechristened sys_oldumount.
> Introducing the call was a very good idea, but I am unhappy
> about the name change.
Me too.
> Therefore, I would like to suggest to call the new system call
> umount2 (for `umount with 2 arguments').
I fully agree with this. So even old glibc releases can be compiled
with modern kernels which is not possible in the moment.
> Furthermore, I would like to suggest that the availability of
> MNT_FORCE in <sys/mount.h> be an indication for the availability
> of umount2() in glibc.
Well, I don't know how this should be done. The headers should always
be the same. The libc implementation of umount should handle this and
if something is asked for which cannot be fulfilled (force umount with
the new umount not available) it returns an error.
-- ---------------. drepper at gnu.org ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Cygnus Solutions `--' drepper at cygnus.com `------------------------- 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