Re: [PATCH] fix descriptions for AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT

[Paul Eggert]

On 3/10/22 05:46, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> 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

Ouch, so this whole thing has been a false alarm? Well, in some sense 
that's a relief; in another sense I wonder whether we should undo some 
of the recent Gnulib changes.