[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][Long][Horror story] Mount flags

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 07:09:35PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:

> > describe the rules in a manpage and see if you will be able to look at it
> > without a feeling that it's an overcomplicated kludge.
> Description: "flags is a 31-bit flags word; the first bit must be zero".

Bzzzzert. I _hope_ that you will not follow that rule in mount(8), because
otherwise... Guess what it will do under 2.2? Right.

> This is not the time to introduce new mount syscalls.

You've just done that _and_ kept the same syscall number. mount(2) documented
as above is _NOT_ the same syscall as it used to be since '94. Different
documented calling conventions. And anyone trying to follow them will get
a program that behaves on any kernel prior to 2.4 other than expected. Worse
yet, you will not get an error from mount(2).

Moreover, now we get an undocumented and strange-looking interface that _is_
compatible between 2.4 and earlier kernels. Fun, fun, looks like mount(8)
uses it instead of what had been said in the manpage.

Sorry, but having the parameters used by mount(8) left _undefined_ in
mount(2) manpage strikes me as extremely bad idea.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.203 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site