At Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:10:56 -0500, H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Actually, glibc works not only on linux but also bsd/hurd/... and so on. Glibc info is written in non system specific style. Glibc works perfect - but kernel system call is rejected. If we wrote each architecture related issue, info needs more pages. I don't know whether glibc maintainers think this description is needed for umount() or not... It's only my opinion. However, you can grep libc info, and you find such system specific issue is not addressed in this info. From user's point of view, it's easy to find umount() behavior on linux for convenience. But umount() is system specific call, it's not standardized, and exactly manpage says umount() changes. Closing this bug without your patch (sorry!) is more appropriate from maintainer's point of view... Do you think about it? Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]