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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:25 EST