lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: umount2
> 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)

OK - that is sufficient reason for MNT_FORCE.

However, I remain opposed against umount(path,flags).

Linux users use a great variety of kernels, libc versions
and mount sources. Our control is not so tight as that of
commercial vendors. We have to remain compatible for
several years.

(Ah, my beloved 0.99p13k
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 211460 Oct 26 1993 zImage.pl13k.aeb
so fast response under X...)

With both umount and umount2 present, one can write
if (umount2(path, flags) == -1 && errno == ENOSYS)
umount(path);
so that if one has a brandnew libc and boots a stable 2.0.29 kernel,
things still work. Without knowing the effect of the various bits
in flags, glibc is not allowed to do the same.
With only one umount prototype present one cannot even write such code.

Andries

-
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.210 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site