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. T -- Leather is waterproof. Ever see a cow with an umbrella?