Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:58:19 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: multimounting cdroms ??? |
| |
Alexander Viro wrote: > > On 27 Jul 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > Followup to: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10007271618130.4986-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu> > > By author: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> > > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to put the warning about "-t bind" being deprecated and > > > killing it completely in favour of new syntax in 2.4.0-release, so at some > > > point I'ld like to know _which_ syntax you are putting into mount(8) ;-) > > > > > > > If so, *please* give us a *reliable* way of detecting the presence or > > absence of this feature! > > mkdir foo > mount -t bind foo foo >/dev/null 2>/dev/null > if [ grep `pwd`/foo /proc/mounts ]; then > have_it = "yes" > else > have_it = "no" > fi > umount foo > rmdir foo >
I don't want to have to try it before testing. However, what is worse, is that you're telling me "mount -t bind" will be replaced by something else, which I don't even know what it is.
> should do it quite fine, no? Or C equivalent... Same goes for new API, > except that there C equivalent is even simpler - mount("foo","foo","", > MS_MGC_VAL|MS_BIND, NULL) and check the return value. It will always fail > on the kernels that do not support the thing ("" is impossible as an > fstype) and it will succeed on the kernels that do (provided that you are > root, indeed, and that nobody will rmdir foo in the meanwhile). > > BTW, if we don't want to support 2.3.99 and 2.4.0-test after the release > of 2.4.0 - it's even simpler. Then >= 2.4.0 means MS_BIND and <2.3.0 means > that we don't have it. > >
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |