FreeLists / openbeos / [openbeos] Re: fs_volume.h vs unistd.h

["François Revol" <revol@xxxxxxx>]

> We break source compatibility here. The R5 mount() stuff is misplaced 
> in a 
> POSIX header, so we decided to move it.
> 
http://www.rt.com/man/mount.2.html
http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man2/mount.2.html
Well seems mount() isn't really standardized anyway...
Though it's sometimes required when porting apps.

> > So do I #include fs_volume.h in unistd (including OS.h too ?)
> > or dup the define ?
> > or move them to unistd.h and /* see unistd.h for flags */ ?
> 
> I'd say neither. We simply break source compatiblity here. The mount 
> API is 
> not really pervasively used in BeOS applications (and why should it? 
> :-), 
> and we have to provide the mount shell command anyway. Regarding the 
> FS 
> add-on side things are even easier: We break both source and binary 
> compatibility, so there's no need to care at all.
> 
> The situation in the repository is a bit unfortunate at the moment. 
> Our new 
> FS interface is not final yet and only the Axel's BFS implements it 
> yet, 
> while the other FSs still stick with the R5 interface. In my opinion 
> we 
> should just include <fs_volume.h> where needed for the time being. 
> While it 
> is certainly not nice, that it doesn't compile on a pure R5 system, 
> it's 
> not really our objective either. #ifdef'ing the inclusion of the 
> header 
> might be a temporary solution.
> 

Right, well I also need to merge dosfs with the version Zeta has, so 
it's nice to see real diffs better.
And dosfs needs better locking before being changed for any API.

François.