Bug#129550: [PATCH] Proposed rewording of umount() info doc

[GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>]

At Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:10:19 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> Attached is a patch that re-words the description in the info file to
> document the additional requirement that umount() can only take the mount
> point, not the mount device, as argument.

> --- sysinfo.texi.ORIG	2002-12-27 12:03:57.000000000 -0500
> +++ sysinfo.texi	2002-12-27 12:06:46.000000000 -0500
> @@ -1048,7 +1048,9 @@
>  @deftypefun {int} umount (const char *@var{file})
>  
>  @code{umount} does the same thing as @code{umount2} with @var{flags} set
> -to zeroes.  It is more widely available than @code{umount2} but since it
> +to zeroes, with the additional requirement that @var{file} must be the
> +mount point, not the device special file.
> +It is more widely available than @code{umount2} but since it
>  lacks the possibility to forcefully unmount a filesystem is deprecated
>  when @code{umount2} is also available.
>  @end deftypefun

Thanks for your patch.

BTW, from manpages umount(2):

HISTORY
       The  original  umount  function  was called as umount(device) and would
       return ENOTBLK when called with something other than  a  block  device.
       In  Linux  0.98p4  a  call  umount(dir)  was added, in order to support
       anonymous devices.  In Linux 2.3.99-pre7 the  call  umount(device)  was
       removed,  leaving only umount(dir) (since now devices can be mounted in
       more than one place, so specifying the device does not suffice).

So... this description is true after 2.4 iff its kernel is linux, if
this manpage is correct.  I think this description depends on your
kernel.  It's kernel issue, not glibc issue.  I wonder this bug has
the right point.

IMHO, this bug can be closed without any patches. I want more
suggestions about it.

Regards,
-- gotom