* errors during umount make SysRq fail
@ 2004-11-09 17:43 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
2004-11-11 19:04 ` Pavel Machek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger @ 2004-11-09 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List
Hi,
having removed an USB disk while umount for it was still running (yes,
that was stupid) I noticed that umount for this device hangs forever in
D state. That would be ok (consequences for user error), however *all*
other umounts I attempt also hang in D state and SysRq-U also hangs,
resulting in a broken system on the next reboot.
I assume the locking against concurrent umount is there to protect
against non-trivial namespace problems and makes sense for normal
umounting, but IIRC SysRq-U is there to ensure consistent filesystems
on the next startup. Would it make sense to allow SysRq-U to break
these locks?
Similar problem exists with SysRq-S. If syncing of one device hangs,
it will never proceed to the next one in the list. I agree that one
is not trivial (stacked devices, loop et al), but can't we make a
best effort to sync at least the physical devices in the machine?
Please don't shoot me for talking about physical devices, I know
there are some really grey areas trying to define that.
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
--
http://www.hailfinger.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: errors during umount make SysRq fail
2004-11-09 17:43 errors during umount make SysRq fail Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
@ 2004-11-11 19:04 ` Pavel Machek
2004-11-12 15:27 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2004-11-11 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List
Hi!
> having removed an USB disk while umount for it was still running (yes,
> that was stupid) I noticed that umount for this device hangs forever in
> D state. That would be ok (consequences for user error), however
Actually, I do not think that is okay. USB disk removed while you are
unmounted it is quite simple case of disk error. umount should handle
it.
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: errors during umount make SysRq fail
2004-11-11 19:04 ` Pavel Machek
@ 2004-11-12 15:27 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2004-11-12 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Iau, 2004-11-11 at 19:04, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > having removed an USB disk while umount for it was still running (yes,
> > that was stupid) I noticed that umount for this device hangs forever in
> > D state. That would be ok (consequences for user error), however
>
> Actually, I do not think that is okay. USB disk removed while you are
> unmounted it is quite simple case of disk error. umount should handle
> it.
Nice theory but 2.6.9 has refcount errors in the eh thread and some
other problems that mean this doesn't happen. It ought to be ok in 10rc1
providing all the patches are merged now
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-11-12 16:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-11-09 17:43 errors during umount make SysRq fail Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
2004-11-11 19:04 ` Pavel Machek
2004-11-12 15:27 ` Alan Cox
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.