[PATCH] fix descriptions for AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT

[Pádraig Brady]

On 10/03/2022 07:44, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mär 09 2022, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> > I audited gnulib's uses of fstatat and found one fishy one that doesn't
> > use AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT, namely, in fts.c where the follow-symlink branch uses
> > 'stat' whereas the no-follow-symlink branch uses fstatat without
> > AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT. I installed the first patch to cause it be consistent in
> > using AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT, which is also consistent with what glibc does
>
> ??? In glibc, stat is the same as fstatat(,,,0).

Indeed. It looks like the man page for fstatat is out of date.
After looking at the kernel code, it seems that:
  fstatat() did _not_ imply AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT from 2.6.38 -> 4.11
    I'm not sure it even honored the AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT flag before 4.11
  fstatat() did imply AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT since 4.11

The attached patch clarifies this is the fstatat and statx man pages.

sorry for the confusion,
Pádraig

man-fix-AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT.diff
Description: Text Data