> 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 ?
The problem is not that no systems uses a two argument umount (which
is wrong) but instead that compiling older glibc's with modern kernels
will fail. The syscall names should never we moved to other numbers.
Inventing new na,es is the only save way. Andries' umount2 is IMO good.
-- ---------------. 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