At Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:10:19 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> @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
