> 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 >
If it is indeed necessary to provide the two argument version this is
possible with glibc 2.1 since we have a awy to provide binary
compatibility.
But this will of course course irritation since it's an interface but
given that Andries is the only person who has to worry about this it
might be acceptable. For the kernel interface you are right. Rename
oldumount back to umount and rename umount to umount2 and we shouldn't
have any problems at the libc side.
-- ---------------. 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