mount() function problem !

[onkar.n.mahajan@gmail.com]

int mount(const char *fs, const char *path, int mflag); int
mount(const char *fs, const char *path, int mflag, const char
*fstype, const char *dataptr, int datalen);

I am not getting what is meant by this --int mflag, const char
*fstype, const char *dataptr, int datalen
Can anybody please explain me with example , Please !


regards,
Onkar

[Keith Thompson]

Re: mount() function problem !

onkar.n.mahajan @gmail.com writes:

int mount(const char *fs, const char *path, int mflag); int
mount(const char *fs, const char *path, int mflag, const char
*fstype, const char *dataptr, int datalen);
>
I am not getting what is meant by this --int mflag, const char
*fstype, const char *dataptr, int datalen
Can anybody please explain me with example , Please !

mount is not a standard C function. Try comp.unix.progr ammer.

(We have some trolls who are trying to encourage off-topic discussions
in this newsgroup. Please ignore them.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: mount() function problem !

In article <lnlk19hlei.fsf @nuthaus.mib.or g>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.orgwrote:

>onkar.n.mahaja n@gmail.com writes:

>int mount(const char *fs, const char *path, int mflag); int
>mount(const char *fs, const char *path, int mflag, const char
>*fstype, const char *dataptr, int datalen);
>>
>I am not getting what is meant by this --int mflag, const char
>*fstype, const char *dataptr, int datalen
>Can anybody please explain me with example , Please !

>
>mount is not a standard C function. Try comp.unix.progr ammer.
>
>(We have some trolls who are trying to encourage off-topic discussions
>in this newsgroup. Please ignore them.)

What keith meant to say (but, apparently, his editor failed him):

"I am a troll who is trying to be a real prick
in this newsgroup. Please ignore me."

[Antoninus Twink]

Re: mount() function problem !

On 13 Jun 2008 at 8:55, Kenny McCormack wrote:

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.orgwrote:

>>onkar.n.mahaj an@gmail.com writes:

>>int mount(const char *fs, const char *path, int mflag);

>>
>>mount is not a standard C function. Try comp.unix.progr ammer.
>>
>>(We have some trolls who are trying to encourage off-topic discussions
>>in this newsgroup. Please ignore them.)

>
What keith meant to say (but, apparently, his editor failed him):
>
"I am a troll who is trying to be a real prick
in this newsgroup. Please ignore me."

The ironic thing is that mount isn't specified by POSIX, so by Keith's
own standards he's just sent the OP to another newsgroup where his
question is also "off topic" - in fact, the signature, semantics and
associated structs for mount(2) vary significantly between different
Unices.

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: mount() function problem !

In article <slrng54el3.fqa .nospam@nospam. invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <nospam@nospam. invalidwrote:

>On 13 Jun 2008 at 8:55, Kenny McCormack wrote:

>Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.orgwrote:

>>>onkar.n.maha jan@gmail.com writes:
>>>int mount(const char *fs, const char *path, int mflag);
>>>
>>>mount is not a standard C function. Try comp.unix.progr ammer.
>>>
>>>(We have some trolls who are trying to encourage off-topic discussions
>>>in this newsgroup. Please ignore them.)

>>
>What keith meant to say (but, apparently, his editor failed him):
>>
>"I am a troll who is trying to be a real prick
>in this newsgroup. Please ignore me."

>
>The ironic thing is that mount isn't specified by POSIX, so by Keith's
>own standards he's just sent the OP to another newsgroup where his
>question is also "off topic" - in fact, the signature, semantics and
>associated structs for mount(2) vary significantly between different
>Unices.
>

(In the words of a well known CLC troll)

"Indeed"

[Richard]

Re: mount() function problem !

gazelle@xmissio n.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <slrng54el3.fqa .nospam@nospam. invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <nospam@nospam. invalidwrote:

>>On 13 Jun 2008 at 8:55, Kenny McCormack wrote:

>>Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.orgwrote:
>>>>onkar.n.mah ajan@gmail.com writes:
>>>>int mount(const char *fs, const char *path, int mflag);
>>>>
>>>>mount is not a standard C function. Try comp.unix.progr ammer.
>>>>
>>>>(We have some trolls who are trying to encourage off-topic discussions
>>>>in this newsgroup. Please ignore them.)
>>>
>>What keith meant to say (but, apparently, his editor failed him):
>>>
>>"I am a troll who is trying to be a real prick
>>in this newsgroup. Please ignore me."

>>
>>The ironic thing is that mount isn't specified by POSIX, so by Keith's
>>own standards he's just sent the OP to another newsgroup where his
>>question is also "off topic" - in fact, the signature, semantics and
>>associated structs for mount(2) vary significantly between different
>>Unices.
>>

>
(In the words of a well known CLC troll)
>
"Indeed"

That would be "word", not "words" ........

[Barry Schwarz]

Re: mount() function problem !

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:34:39 -0700 (PDT), onkar.n.mahajan @gmail.com
wrote:

>int mount(const char *fs, const char *path, int mflag); int
>mount(const char *fs, const char *path, int mflag, const char
>*fstype, const char *dataptr, int datalen);
>
>I am not getting what is meant by this --int mflag, const char
>*fstype, const char *dataptr, int datalen
>Can anybody please explain me with example , Please !

What you have is a pair of inconsistent prototypes for a function
named mount.

The first prototype says that mount returns an int and takes three
arguments:
a pointer to a constant character (the function will not modify
this character)
a second pointer to a constant character
and an int

The second prototype says that mount returns an int and takes six
arguments:
the first three are the same as above
a third pointer to a constant character
a fourth pointer to a constant character
and a second integer

Since both prototypes cannot be in scope simultaneously, what kind of
example are you looking for?



Remove del for email