Hi, On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:37:04AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Roland McGrath <rol...@hack.frob.com> skribis:
> > Frankly I think it would be better to keep these single-caller > > interfaces out of libc proper. It's not really ideal that they are > > there for Linux either, but syscall stubs are less of an issue than > > real code. > > While not ideal, I think it would greatly simplify porting to have > libc provide those functions regardless of the kernel. I think what Roland is trying to say here is that the mount(2) call is not really intended as an API, but rather just a system-specific low-level syscall wrapper existing solely for the convenience of the system-specific mount(1) utility implementation; and other programs have no business invoking it directly at all. (At least that's my impression...) Also, the semantics of translators have some subtle differences from "traditional" mount points -- so I'm not sure it's really a good idea to let applications believe they are dealing with the same mechanism... Having said that, *if* it's actually common practice nowadays to (mis)use the mount(2) call directly, I'd say it *might* indeed be more convenient to implement a compatibility wrapper at the libc level... -antrik-
