Re: umount2

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:53:38 +0100 (BST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Tygrys: "Re: Can't build new linux kernel 2.0.35"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: IDE-Driver Disk Accounting Missing, Maybe SCSI too......"
In reply to: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: what is the status of >2gig filesizes"
Next in thread: Tomasz Przygoda: "Re: what is the status of >2gig filesizes"

> would not compile anymore. Instead glibc should present
> umount(path)
> and
> umount2(path,flags)
> to the world.
> Then old programs continue functioning, regardless of kernel and libc.
> Just a new call, a new name, no problems anywhere, even the man page
> remains correct.

umount(path) is going the way of the dinosaurs. umount(path,flags) is
becoming the standard, and I went to the trouble to precisely copy OSF

(thats why MNT_ not UMNT_FORCE)

-
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

Next message: Tygrys: "Re: Can't build new linux kernel 2.0.35"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: IDE-Driver Disk Accounting Missing, Maybe SCSI too......"
In reply to: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: what is the status of >2gig filesizes"
Next in thread: Tomasz Przygoda: "Re: what is the status of >2gig filesizes"