Re: umount2
Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:54:47 +0100 (BST)
> > 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.
Ah ok I see
So the argument is
glibc 2.1 should present
umount(path,flags)
to the world
but the kernel should present glibc with umount(path) and umount2(path,flags)
Do I understand right >
-
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