Bug#129550: [PATCH] Proposed rewording of umount() info doc
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 12:16:40PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:10:19 -0500,
> H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
[snip]
> 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.
[snip]
Hmm. In this case, maybe the right thing to do would be to add a note to
the documentation stating that on some kernels, namely, Linux 2.4.x (or
more precisely, 2.3.99-pre7 and up), umount() requires its argument to be
the mount point.
T
--
Leather is waterproof. Ever see a cow with an umbrella?
Reply to: